Next book: Higher Superstition by Gross and Levitt

My next reading is Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, a 1994 book by biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt.  Their book was a response to the "Science Wars" of the 80's and 90's, when the zeitgeist of certain people in humanities (and to a lesser extent social science) was "Science is just, like, a Western patriarchal heteronormative yadda yadda construct of the people at the top of the power structure."  And, to be clear, their claim wasn't merely that the culture of researchers in the natural sciences was "just, like, a Western yadda yadda construct"; that claim is not entirely wrong, though surely the many non-Westerners who contribute quitie productively to the advancement of modern science would have a thing or two to say in response, as Arun Bala noted.  Some went further and claimed that the body of scientific knowledge is somehow a subjective thing that arises more from our own cultural biases than any sort of meaningful, objective engagement with something that has a reality independent of our understanding of it.

With the benefit of 23 years of hindsight, as well as two and a half years of reading and blogging about cultural factors that affect the modern academy, this book feels like it missed the point.  As I've said before, the modern academic left mostly does not question science.  Yeah, there are a few weirdos talking about "natural" medicine, and a lot of liberal academics deny research on the predictive validity of standardized tests, but those cases are remarkable for being unusual.  Most liberals, academic or otherwise, strongly support science.  They might not understand it as well as they think they do, and it's possible that if they understood certain results better they would reject them, but the "Science March" was very much a thing of the left.  Oh, there was probably some conservative somewhere in the audience, but it was understood as being primarily about liberal stances on environmental issues, health issues, etc., as well as opposition to the superstitions of religious conservatives (who are currently rallying around a twice-divorced casino owner and confessed sexual harasser or worse...).  So, outside the academy, science is widely regarded as a thing of the left.  This is probably to our detriment (I'd rather that my professional and intellectual passion be respected across the spectrum), but it is most definitely NOT what Gross and Levitt feared might come to pass.  The "post-modernist" critics of science did NOT win over the non-academic left to their cause.

On campus, I'm sure somebody somewhere is still banging on about Newtonian mechanics being an artefact of white male culture, but hardly anyone pays attention to them.  Administrators say "STEM!  STEM!  STEM!" all day long.  There are certainly some people in the humanities and social sciences who grumble about this STEM obsession, but they are, at worst, expressing a bit of (understandable)  jealousy, and more often are engaging in sincere defenses of things that are worth preserving.  They aren't questioning our knowledge claims.

What has happened is an obsession with inclusion in STEM, because STEM is on the pedestal, and some of this comes with demands to change the culture of how STEM professionals work, but not with insistence that our knowledge is some subjective product of an arbitrary and weird culture.  Nonetheless, some of the more damaging aspects of the push to transform STEM (mainly a demand that we reject meritocratic elitism in favor of getting every available warm body into The Pipeline) share roots with the Science Warriors of the 80's and 90's.  So it is worth studying this phenomenon of the past, in part to understand those roots, and in part to understand how those predictions failed. We can learn a lot about how we got to where we are if we understand how old predictions went astray.

A final note, before we get going:  As far as I can tell from examining the first two chapters and the index, Levitt and Gross missed/ignored the more technocratic rumblings of STEM reformers in the 90's.  Sheila Tobias wasn't in the index, though she wrote They're Not Dumb, They're Different in 1990.  I looked for some prominent education researchers but did not find them in the index.  The National Science Foundation is not mentioned.  This book really does seem to be focused, which is not a bad thing (all good books have a chosen scope) but does point to how they missed what actually happened.  Ultimately, I think they spent too much time thinking that the crazier ideas espoused by humanities professors would be able to take root in the wider public, and in exactly the form in which they were originally espoused.  But ideas don't work that way.

OK, let's go.

We broke our postmodern cage and ran

We're revisiting the 90's right now, partly because Soundgarden vocalist Chris Cornell just died and partly because some people attempted to replicate the Sokal hoax, publishing a nonsense article full of dense gender studies jargon.  For those too young to remember the glories of the 90's, Sokal published an article full of incomprehensible postmodernist jargon, making some sort of pretentious claim about physics being just, like, your opinion, man.  Or something.  It wasn't really supposed to make sense.  Anyway, these authors published an article arguing that the whole concept of a penis is just an invented concept, or something.  Then they published an article revealing that their first article was never meant seriously, and the fact that it nonetheless got published proves that the field of gender studies is bunk.  Or something.

Now, whether these authors have really taught us anything about alleged problems in the field of gender studies is very much a contested claim, not the least because the article was turned down by an undistinguished journal before being accepted by an even less distinguished journal.  But I'm not interested in dissecting alleged problems in the field of gender studies.  Rather, I want to note a different point, about the contrasts between the fashionable postmodernism of the 90's and the fashionable identity politics of today.

On the surface there are similarities.  The identity studies and identity activist types of today and the postmodern literary theorists and Science Wars types of the 90's both agreed that you can dismiss an idea if it is Western, patriarchal, colonialist, yadda yadda.  Both are ultimately signaling games for people with a certain type of education.  And both are largely rubbish from an intellectual perspective.

Still, there are two key differences:

1) The PoMo guys didn't seem to believe in truth.  OK, they probably believed that Western, male, yadda yadda ideas were even less true than others, but ultimately they seemed to think that everything is just, like, subjective, man.  So, yes, they would reject Western, patriarchal, yadda yadda ideas, but they'd also reject any other idea if you got too enamored of it.

The modern identity politics types, OTOH, seem to believe that they have access to truth.  They don't just want to tell everyone that stuff is complicated and depends on your point of view.  They want to claim that truth comes from the margins and so while my white, Western, male, yadda yadda opinion might be wrong, theirs is right.  There are problems with claiming moral authority on the grounds that truth can only come from the margins, as I've noted before, but they certainly make that claim.

2) The PoMo guys had hard reads.  Foucault is not for the faint of heart. Marx (not PoMo but nonetheless appreciated by a certain type of humanities scholar) can only be read with a lot of caffeine and cigarettes. OTOH, I am pretty sure that you could do just fine with the modern politically correct types if you read a few privilege think-pieces and just nodded along with whatever they said.  They have truth, and as long as you acknowledge that it's good.  There's no intellectual game to be played, no idea to be skewered, just a "yes-and" discussion.  Remember your victim hierarchy, defer to others* the loudest when in doubt, and it will be fine.  You don't need thick books or nuanced arguments, just rhetorical cudgels.

So, as much as I like the 1990's, and as much as I would like to return to them, we aren't there.  We're in a different era.  The PoMos read thick books, and as much as they annoyed me back then I would gladly take them over the current wave of identity politics.

Mind you, the 90's did have political correctness, but that was a different beast, an angrier one than the PoMo types.  And I never had to encounter much of the PC because it had already self-discredited by the time I entered a pretty Republican-heavy college.  It didn't disappear but it dial back a notch.  PoMo was a lesser evil, in retrospect, because it was always just a game, a game that ended the second that we got a Republican in the White House and (more importantly) the EPA.  Science is only a social construct until somebody tries to ignore it.  Then every liberal turns into a raging technocrat.  But while "That's just, like, your opinion, man" gets tossed aside when practical considerations dictate so, identity politics shows little sign of abating.  Alas.

Anyway, the post title comes from a song that was written by Chris Cornell (who died this week) and was covered by Johnny Cash in 1996 (the year of the Sokal hoax).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nehoakn-LbE

*My apologies for Othering people :)

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

Well, here I am, blogging late at night/early in the morning after a shocking election.  I have no interest in dissecting partisan politics here, only intellectual politics.

In the 1990's, an interregnum between the Cold War and War on Terror, academics drew knives on each other for the "Science Wars."  We got to hear from a certain type of humanities student that science is just, like, a Western hegemonic patriarchal cultural construct.  That all ended when Bush The Lesser took office, and all academics agreed that global warming is objective scientific fact.

In recent years we have been going at each other in higher ed over a somewhat different set of issues, but I suspect that we'll come together again.  Most academics will be on the same page about Trump, and there will be a degree of internal unity that we haven't previously enjoyed.  Even many academics of rather conservative views on certain issues (e.g. me) feel that Trump is illiberal, uninformed, and reckless.

What are the things that we will declare a truce on?  Well, we have been talking a lot about unconscious bias and invisible advantages, the subtle things.  But we are now confronted with a large number of people supporting a man who spouted undisguised, clearly visible, not-at-all subtle bias.  The problem we face is not good people who are slightly biased in spite of good intentions, but something much more blatant.

That's the part where I ask for people to give less emphasis to something that I disagree with.  Here's where I give less emphasis to something:

I've been going after the anti-intellectualism of progressive education.  I'm still opposed to it, and I will still pursue the path that I believe is most intellectually appropriate.  But anti-intellectualism manifests in many ways and in many aspects of American life.  Progressive educators cannot be my only targets.

Next book: The Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science by Arun Bala

The next book will be The Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science by Arun Bala. I picked it up on a whim at a used bookstore.  Originally published in 2006, the book opens by referencing the "Science Wars" of the 1990's, when idiots ran around saying that "Science is just a Western cultural construct rooted in assumptions that are something something Western hegemonic patriarchal racist something something and that's just, like, your opinion, man."  On the first page, Bala makes an important point:  Both the traditionalists and the postmodern idiots ran around assuming that modern science is a purely Western thing.  The purpose of this book is to use the historical record to debunk that assumption, and show non-Western influences on the Scientific Revolution of Europe.

If you think about it, the whole idea of science as a purely Western cultural construct is obvious bullshit, as evidenced by the number of Chinese and Indian scientists in US universities, as well as the global competitiveness of Japanese corporations making electronics and medical equipment based on the fruits of 20th century physics.

Interestingly, the "Science Wars" mostly ended on January 20 of 2001, when Bush The Lesser succeeded Clinton I and appointed to the executive agencies people who don't like environmental science.  At that point everyone in academia agreed that science is awesome.  At least for political purposes.  The reign of Barack Augustus has seen some academic and cultural pushback against science, but mostly from the kool-aid drinkers within STEM, not from the PoMo literary critics and sociologists arguing that science is just, like, your opinion, man.  The critics within STEM agree that science is great, they just think it's culture is terrible, and like all dangerous lies it's partly true.  Of course, they argue that the problem has something to do with the expert voice, and that takes us back to the problems of the First Great Awakening, but that's a discussion for another time.

Anyway, I'll be curious to see what Bala comes up with.

Sein und Zeitgeist

In Chapter 10, Lee Jussim gets to the question of why inaccuracies and bias in human perception get more attention than accuracy.  On page 153 he addresses an aspect of the issue that I think is most salient to my concerns as an educator: If we believe that a person is unskilled, under-qualified, under-accomplished, or whatever because our perceptions are inaccurate, then "all" that we need to do is change our perceptions.  That isn't always easy to accomplish as a seamless thing, it often requires conscious effort, but, in the end, bringing yourself to say "You know, he/she is actually pretty talented; I'll hire them/admit them to college/etc." is still easier than saying "Uh-oh, this person is way under-prepared, we have work to do to fix that."  Any research that tells us that problems can be fixed by thinking differently is going to attract more support from the intellectual class than research that tells us that we'll have to do a lot more work on problems that stubbornly defy easy solutions.

On page 158, Jussim also notes that social psychology is more fun if you find bias and inaccuracy.  If people generally perceive things pretty accurately then what is there to say?  What need is there for a consultant?  People will figure things out and, um, yeah.  But if bias and misperception are everywhere then there's something to work on.  This is akin to issues of publication bias in other areas of science.  Perhaps bias research is biased in favor of bias research?

If the concerns in the first paragraph are largely social and political, and the concerns in the second paragraph are technical and pecuniary, then I think there's also a third contributor to the intellectual zeitgeist: Negative results from Western intellectuals in the 20th century.  From them, we learned that measurements of distance and time are not absolute, but rather depend on how you are moving relative to someone else.  (Einstein)  We learned that mathematics is incomplete, and contains statements that cannot be proved by pure logic.  (Godel)  We learned that matter is not composed of solid particles with fixed positions and motions, but rather is "fuzzy" and smeared out, with uncertain positions and velocities. (Schrodinger, Heisenberg) Then Turing taught us that computers, the defining technology of the modern era, would have limits to what they could compute.  Subsequently, Arrow taught us that it is impossible to even construct reasonable and egalitarian procedures for picking a winner in an election!*  All of this set the stage for post-modernism and numerous other ideas from French intellectuals, and ultimately led to classmates in the 1990's telling me that scientific truth is just, like, a social construction, man.**

Mind you, I would happily argue that relativity, quantum mechanics, formal logic, computer science, and election theory should not be taken as death knells for ideas of objective knowledge and accurate perception.  I would be happy to argue that all of these ideas are misinterpreted.  However, if we are discussing how these topics are viewed by the educated classes rather than how they ought to be viewed then I think it's clear that the zeitgeist is favorable to the notion that humans can't really, like, know anything.  And, having just graded a stack of final exams, I am also favorable to the notions that most humans are unable to, like, know anything!  :)

*What Arrow's Theorem really says is a bit more subtle than that, but let's leave that aside for now.  Some other time I'll argue that the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem can be interpreted as a theorem about conflicts of interest.
**However, the "science wars" of the 1990's, in which some humanities scholars went way too far in their critiques of science, became irrelevant after the 2000 election.  The academic community found a new common cultural enemy, and recently I read an article (can't find the link now) in which one combatant on the left wing of the "science wars" now finds himself on the side of objective scientific fact when facing right-wingers who argue that global warming is just, like, your opinion, man.