Auto Added by WPeMatico

Censoring the dead: E O Wilson, Darwin, Mendel, and so on

This is from Scientific American’s non-eulogy to the great entomologist and founder of sociobiology EO Wilson. A careful reading reveals that the author calls for a complete scheme of censorship of scientific publications  by “experts” – in wokeness I assume – so that the reader will be continually reminded of the dangers associated with reading “problematical” authors whose thought is <gasp> “racist”.


“To put the legacy of their work in the proper perspective, a more nuanced understanding of problematic scientists is necessary. It is true that work can be both important and problematic—they can coexist. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate and critique these scientists, considering, specifically the value of their work and, at the same time, their contributions to scientific racism….

“First, truth and reconciliation are necessary in the scientific record, including attention to citational practices when using or reporting on problematic work. This approach includes thinking critically about where and when to include historically problematic work and the context necessary for readers to understand the limitations of the ideas embedded in it. This will require commitments from journal editors, peer reviewers and the scientific community to invest in retrofitting existing publications with this expertise. They can do so by employing humanities scholars, journalists and other science communicators with the appropriate expertise to evaluate health and life sciences manuscripts submitted for publication.

“Second, diversifying the scientific workforce is crucial…feminist standpoint theory is helpful in understanding white empiricism and who is eligible to be a worthy observer of the human condition and our world….

“Undoing scientific racism will require commitments from the entire scientific community to determine the portions of historically problematic work that are relevant and to let the scientific method function the way it was designed—to allow for dated ideas to be debunked and replaced.”

The author is Monica McLemore, pictured below. This is the future of science people. Prepare for political control of speech, thought, research and the elimination of the scientific method.


Monica McLemore, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN | ANSIRH


For more of the same you can read about “white empiricism”.

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein writes:

“I introduce the concept of white empiricism to provide one explanation for why [there are so few black women in physics] . White empiricism is the phenomenon through which only white people (particularly white men) are read has having a fundamental capacity for objectivity and Black people (particularly Black women) are produced as an ontological other.”

I cant do the maths either, and I feel happier that my mathematical incompetence is not impeding the development of physics, whereas this new mafia of semi-intelligent black women in “science” is stting about to turn it into a branch of affirmative action.

Scott Adams’ Deep Dive

I have been listening to Scott Adams, Dilbert’s creator, for some time now. His style is cool and rational. I recommend him. On the downside, he can ramble, and the level of preparation for the show is wanting. Putting it another way, a little editing would improve the show.

For the past few weeks he has been conducting a “deep dive” into anthropogenic global warming. He professes skepticism towards all claims for and against man-caused global warming. He keeps asking the right questions, namely, what fact or facts, if shown, would be decisive to a rational mind that man-caused global warming was both happening and serious.

On the downside – and I confess to having listened to him too much – he needs to do something about his nose. As in blowing it to clear the nasal passages. If that is insufficient, would he please take some claritin or anti-histamine? Thank you, Scott.

His contribution to rational discourse is hugely important.