Excellent essay from Coyne and Maroja that picks apart six widespread examples of biology being corrupted by (often well-intentioned) ideology.
You must log in or # to comment.
This article leans more toward Denialism than Skepticism, and you need look no further than the very first point they make to see that.
- Sex in humans is not a discrete and binary distribution of males and females but a spectrum. This statement, one of the most common political distortions of biology (e.g., Ainsworth 2018), is wrong because nearly every human on earth falls into one of two distinct categories.
They contradict themselves in the very same sentence. “nearly every human on earth falls into one of two distinct categories” is just another way of saying “sex is a spectrum because some people DO fall between two distinct groups”. There are many millions of people out there like this and deserve to be considered in scientific research.
Then their 2nd point is just a blatant straw man:
- All behavioral and psychological differences between human males and females are due to socialization.
I very much doubt this is a common statement made by any legitimate scientist. Nature and Nurture is at the very core of human psychology. That’s psychology 101.
Given that they opened their article with these two intentionally fallacious statements, I see no reason to read any further. The authors need to examine themselves for ideological biases, not accuse everyone else of it.
They contradict themselves in the very same sentence. “nearly every human on earth falls into one of two distinct categories” is just another way of saying "sex is a spectrum
That’s not a contradiction because a binary with some exceptions is not, therefore, a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuously varying attribute like height. An individual can move along the height spectrum. There is no continuous variable in mammalian sex; there are only two discrete gametes.
You may as well say humans aren’t bipedal because some individuals have one leg or none. But to describe human locomotion as a spectrum would be laughably misleading. And why corrupt the language in this way? Ideology, of course.
deserve to be considered in scientific research.
They are that’s why we know about them. Strawman suggesting the authors are implying NOT including them in research.
- All behavioral and psychological differences between human males and females are due to socialization.
I very much doubt this is a common statement made by any legitimate scientist.
The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists. They cite examples of blankslate-ism in the media and the idea itself as a theory of mind has been around in philosophy from the likes of John Locke and Descarte.
Good psychologists of course know the effects of evolution and sexual dichotomy on human psychology, but this doesn’t always penetrate into society at large.
Given that they opened their article with these two clearly IDEOLOGICAL statements, I see no reason to read any further. The authors need to examine themselves for ideological biases, not accuse everyone else of it.
It’s worth a read and it’s not terribly long. Always worth to have ideas challenged.
That’s not a contradiction because a binary with some exceptions is not, therefore, a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuously varying attribute like height. An individual can move along the height spectrum. There is no continuous variable in mammalian sex;
Yes there is, there is a wide array of variation among the “exceptions” as you call them.
there are only two discrete gametes.
They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.
You may as well say humans aren’t bipedal because some individuals have one leg or none. But to describe human locomotion as a spectrum would be laughably misleading. And why corrupt the language in this way? Ideology, of course.
Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum? That would not be misleading at all. Yes it is an ideology, but so is your position. Ideology is not inherently a bad thing.
The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.
Of course it is. The very opening line of the article states:
“Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals…”
clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.
It’s worth a read and it’s not terribly long. Always worth to have ideas challenged.
It is not always worth having ideas challenged. I am happy to have my ideas challenged but I’m not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is. The only response to a Gish gallop is not to engage.