‘Science after feminism’ will be a wasteland of idiocy

Caption: Foucault wrote at length about the Ship of Fools. Naturally, he got almost everything wrong. Regardless, the ship of fools that is modern academia careens on.

Once upon a time, feminism actually had a point. Then it degenerated into an idiots? chorus of blue-haired land-whales screeching nonsense like ?intersectionality?, as they waddled about exposing themselves to terrified passers-by and exuding a disgusting fug of cat urine and misandry.

Similarly, feminist philosophy of science once made some pretty good arguments. Now, it?s just another farrago of post-modern stupidity masquerading as academic discourse. Quote:

Princeton University is offering a spring course titled “Science After Feminism,” which purports to expose the racial and gender biases inherent in Western science’s search for truth.

The very notion of “objectivity,” according to the course’s ?description, is the construct of oppressive systems of thought and can never be free of the hegemonic mindset of the white men who had systematized its pursuit. End of quote.

As is standard with left-wing academia, they?ve just strung together a bunch of buzz-words which add up to meaning nothing that makes a lick of sense, but which sounds impressive to the sort of gullible ninnies who are impressed by gobbledegook.

At the heart of scientific thinking is universalism: the idea that some facts are the same for everyone, regardless of their race, sex or class. Such an idea is anathema to post-modernism. Quote:

Is science gendered, racialized, ableist or classist? Does the presence or absence of women (and [other] marginalized individuals) lead to the production of different kinds of scientific knowledge?

Was science historically influenced by racism and sexism? Of course. The “Scientific Revolution” of the 16th century by white, Christian European men was ignited by the onslaught of colonialism. End of quote.

No, it wasn?t.

More to the point, there?s a reason that science was invented by white, Christian European men, and not Muslim women or Native American transsexuals.

Science is a very unnatural way for human beings to think. This is a point that very few people seem to understand, least of all the ?IFLScience? crowd or the left. The fact that the scientific revolution happened at all was extraordinarily unlikely. As physicist Paul Davies has said, if a meteor had wiped out central Europe sometime around the 13th century, the scientific revolution wouldn?t have happened. Quite likely, ever.

As I said, feminists once made some worthwhile critiques of scientific practice (as opposed to science itself). One good argument was that hypothesis selection biased science: in other words, the very questions that scientists choose to try to answer inevitably biases (in one direction or another) what comes to constitute scientific knowledge.

Another was that biased assumptions by researchers can lead to undesirable outcomes. For instance, males and females can have very different reactions to drugs and their doses. If scientists only research the effect of certain drugs on male subjects, the health of female patients can be compromised. Quote:

But the question Taylor’s course seems to be asking is not whether science can be biased by bad ideas, but?whether there can be “different kinds” [of] scientific facts? End of quote.

It has to be asked: just what ?different kinds of facts? can there be? Are there different results for the speed of light if it is measured by an African or a transsexual? Do electrons have a positive charge if a Muslim scientist does the experiment? Quote:

The superposition of electrons apparently mirrors the ambiguous nature of identity ? and vice verse. End of quote.

This is the sort of idiotic woo trundled out by the hippies who tried to claim that Indian mysticism is ?just like quantum physics?. Man. Of course it isn?t; it?s just that these morons are too stupid to really understand either.

Of course, there?s no post-modern clown show complete without the King Twit of modern academia. Quote:

“A Foucauldian Analysis of the Science, Ethics and Politics of the Medical Production of Cisgendered Lives.” End of quote.

Foucault was, as Camille Paglia scornfully notes, an ?ignorant fake?. His legions of academic acolytes are even dumber: ?pitifully na?ve?they should be punished with derision and loss of reputation for their amoral destruction of the next generation of scholars,? says Paglia.

Not content with destroying the humanities for generations, these malign nitwits are now well on their way to destroy the sciences. The New Dark Age comes on apace.