Read on Twitter
Gosh - why am I finding this guy right now? There he is with Emma Hilton (the TERF I had a fight with the other day) talking about sexual dimorphism as if this is new and interesting territory. https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1262405372230459393
There are VERY few things in this world the piss me off more than the misuse of science.
I happen to like science. I studied physics for 8 years and then taught physics and integrated science for 13 years.
I often focused my teaching on what science is and isn't.
I happen to like science. I studied physics for 8 years and then taught physics and integrated science for 13 years.
I often focused my teaching on what science is and isn't.
Many of my students absolutely hated science (they needed to take it for a certificate) - for two reasons:
1) They've had difficulty academically with science in the past and/or had math anxiety
2) They thought of science as being at odds with their religion
1) They've had difficulty academically with science in the past and/or had math anxiety
2) They thought of science as being at odds with their religion
So, I spent almost an inordinate amount of time explaining science itself.
FIRST thing I would explain - before the scientific method or data collection or even differentiating between philosophical and methodological naturalism:
Science is descriptive not prescriptive.
FIRST thing I would explain - before the scientific method or data collection or even differentiating between philosophical and methodological naturalism:
Science is descriptive not prescriptive.
Science is does not impose values, morals, or beliefs.
It absolutely has informed ideology, philosophy and religion - but once you start talking about what an observation or a model MEANS and not how certain you are of it or it's predictive power - you are not doing SCIENCE.
It absolutely has informed ideology, philosophy and religion - but once you start talking about what an observation or a model MEANS and not how certain you are of it or it's predictive power - you are not doing SCIENCE.
Before the Origin of Species was even published - it was appropriated by racists to bolster their bullshit.
I put these yahoos in the same category as "race realists" or folks that claim homosexuality goes against "nature".
Science doesn't tell you how to treat other people.
I put these yahoos in the same category as "race realists" or folks that claim homosexuality goes against "nature".
Science doesn't tell you how to treat other people.
These folks might know a list of facts you can look up in the Encyclopedia in your parents' basement - but they are making a MORAL argument.
Making a MORAL argument and presenting it as if SCIENCE backs you up - IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Making a MORAL argument and presenting it as if SCIENCE backs you up - IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
You can definitely counter this on the science end of things and explain this study or that study concerning the broad range of human diversity.
But this really isn't, at its heart, a discussion about science. It's them USING science to obscure what they are really saying.
But this really isn't, at its heart, a discussion about science. It's them USING science to obscure what they are really saying.
Because they know that without the window-dressing of legitimacy they borrowed from "SCIENCE" - they would just be left with naked bigotry and folks would see right through it.
