The hysteria sweeping college campuses is too widespread to ignore even in mainstream channels. The Left’s children have picked up the mantle of protest to eat their elders. The protests and attacks on right-wing, centrist, or even progressive thinkers allow for a much wider discussion in the media of what exactly is wrong with academia–this discussion only after decades of hyphenated studies majors, gender fluid graduates, and academics calling for dismantling the host culture.
Look hard enough or simply read peer reviewed studies and you can see the dangerous direction that entrenched progressive academia is taking science. It is moving primitive to serve its clerisy.
Others would argue that what we are seeing in academia is a form of Lysenkoism. It would, after all, make sense for America’s communist academics to mimic the Soviet style of old. Conceptually, bending results to fit preconceived notions and political beliefs does happen in climate science, most notably with hockey stick manipulation and failing to show longer time scale climate charts and graphs indicating warmer historical periods.
Manipulation occurs more in the humanities, where progressive blinders preclude researchers from citing or investigating views outside the Overton Window. Research into the origins of homosexuality drove down the biological or “born this way” path for decades, and surveys and studies into any linkage of early childhood same-sex contact (molestation) and adult identification with homosexuality were dropped for decades, only to be broached again now.
Another angle is that the progressive approach to academia parallel’s the Nazi regime’s approach to aryanization of subjects, which even extended to the hard sciences. There was not just a German cultural history of literature and art to celebrate, but also the German way to interpret sciences. With progressivism, all research areas pass through the race, gender or sexuality prism and come out on the other side properly progressive.
There is something darker, though, about what progressives are doing, namely engaging in an explicit rejection of what modern science is based on: mathematics.
Without math, what experiments, comparisons, measurements, and broader conceptual conclusions can be derived? Mathematics and the focus on grounding science in mathematics is what separates modern science from the medieval period and classic studies. Technology did have a hand in this, as Europeans developed the mechanical clock and telescope, which allowed for accurate measurement and standardization between researchers. One could debate the value of the clock itself for the scientific and industrial revolutions that began in Europe.
These inventions allowed for the scientific method’s use by amateurs, provided they adhered to the process and tools with appropriate review. They not only had to use the system of weights and measures in a replicable way, but there had to be checks that the weights and measures were accurate in the first place. Did you run the experiment–forget the result of the experiment for a moment–did you run the experiment, and did it prove or disprove the hypothesis? This is where the Lysenkoism element of progressive academics comes into play because results do not conform to their hypotheses.
The emergence of modern science placed a focus on the experimental because it could be measurable. With the advances of Copernicus, Brahe, and of course Newton, science became less about the debate and reasoning and more about the proof. The models could explain exactly where a body would be or how fast, long, and powerful motion would be. Newton synched the heavens and earth under the same force.
The progressive coalition needs to place its members in academia, which functions as a patronage and jobs machine for the Left–not simply an ideological laboratory. There are only so many seats available in the guild for ethnic, gender, and sexuality studies. To stuff members into other subjects takes time, and the STEM fields are subjects that progressive voting coalition blocs score poorly on with regularity. There is also, of course, problem of pushing the boundaries of STEM to break new ground, yet trying to do so with weaker students. The demand is great, but the supply is weak.
Progressives are now making a strong attempt at infiltrating the sciences, particularly by introducing and intermingling concepts like race, racism, cosmology and the time space continuum. Climate change itself needs to consider the gender differences of interpretation and effects. Gender even affects how one can study the forests and how forest study and research is done. Evidence-based medicine is a problem that gender scholars can address.
That last link is key. The abstract cites the “social nature of science,” which constitutes a rejection of the idea that science is based on mathematics, experimentation, and examining the data that experiments yield. The reason for introducing the concept of the social nature of science is because progressives have run into the problem of science and reality not aligning with their belief system and ideology.
Reality can, in fact, be avoided in research. It can be confined and suppressed, but it is harder to ignore in the hard sciences that have traditionally used experiments, math, and measurements for exploring the fundamental structure of nature. When reality cannot be ignored, progressives cite mystical factors that conform to progressive ideology can be incorporated. These studies are slipped into peer reviewed journals, they get cited many times over in other papers, and the hogwash clears the academic over the hurdle to receive tenure or at least a full-time position.
The lie of 2 + 2 = 5 continues because all have entered the game accepting it as real. They never have to convince you in order to obtain sinecure in academia. They receive their spot and like a self-replicating machine, a von Neumann academic, the original social lie spreads to other academics, future educators, and for the students who need to pass through these courses for a diploma.
It is not science, not modern science. It is debate and discussion of science dripping with ideology and religious belief. The road forward for progressive science is a road back, as progressives build a hierarchy and church of its own that will lead to stagnation and ossification.