Let's talk about the argument from authority; let's talk about intelligent scientists who blog outside their immediate lane. Today I'll single out one, Sabine Hossenfelder, who wants to be taken seriously as a philosopher of science and as a climate change knowledge-advocate.
Dr Hossenfelder is mighty brave against those "Deniers" who question that model which Western academia supports. She calls them nasty names, she does. So let's ask how she stacks up against other modern academic fads.
Every society down to the nuclear family recognises same-sex attraction and gender dysmorphia as not good for purpose in propagating that society. We have a pretty good idea on how LGBT propagates itself. The hypothesis certainly has explanatory power. Predictive, too, I'd hazard.
But good luck publishing about that. When someone says a word wrong against the Rainbow Flag, that word gets hundreds of critiques. This happens in race as well: the argument is rebutted not with a counter so much as with a petition.
Hossenfelder does note the fallacy of "consensus". For her own integrity, she has to - given that she was a String Theory Denier before it was cool. But Hossenfelder has run the Back Reaction blog for ... how long now?
Any public-facing scientist who chooses Not To Get Involved on race and gender, but is happy to get into other controversies instead, is not as brave as she pretends to be. Sure, the "now do -" / "whaddabout -" comments are diversionary. But if your blog is already making diversions into politically-charged topics, that's a significant set of blind-spots.
UPDATE 11 AM: She probably shouldn't consider Islam either.
UPDATE 4/16/22: And even when she does get involved on energy-policy, she's untrustworthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment