It's A Quote

[Fake Messiah]

Science doesn't teach us wisdom. 

It's not that science doesn't teach wisdom but that people are frequently not wise enough to accept it. Like when Galileo was using telescope to show that the planets revolved around the sun, not the Earth, and being hounded and threatened with torture and death by the Church.

[Belacqua]

The "belligerent slogan" that "trans women are women" is “scientifically false, a debauching of language, and because, when taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women."

-- Richard Dawkins

This is a quote from the new book The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss.

[Paleophyte]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

[Belacqua]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

The poor guy has been pushed into an unfortunate position due to his need to remain consistent with what he's said before.

He's argued strongly and consistently that we should only accept as true the things that science can demonstrate. Science is our only means to discover what is true about the world. 

Science, of course, works through examining only the objective, the empirical, the quantifiable, the repeatable evidence that's available for testing. This means that for Dawkins, the only way to determine if someone is a man or a woman is to look at chromosomes, genitalia, pelvis structure, etc. -- the scientific markers for maleness or femaleness. 

Gender, on the other hand, cannot be examined and tested in this way. Therefore Dawkins cannot accept claims about gender which cannot be empirically and objectively evidenced. 

He has no choice but to deny that trans women are women, if he wants to stay consistent with his "only science tells the truth" conviction. If he were to accept that trans women are who they claim to be, he would have to give up his commitment to the idea that only empirical and objective evidence should be trusted.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

Right enough. There are (and always have been) better proponents for secularism and naturalism.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

He is has no choice but to deny that trans women are women, if he wants to stay consistent with his "only science tells the truth" conviction. If he were to accept that trans women are who they claim to be, he would have to give up his commitment to the idea that only empirical and objective evidence should be trusted.

So nice of you to stick your neck for trans people. I hope you are genuinely concerned about trans people and you are not just making a circus here by trying to pull a fallacy that if Dawkins is wrong about one thing that he must be wrong about everything. But then again, we already tried to explain it to you that you don't have to have empirical evidence for everything and yet you ignore it, which seems very disingenuous.

And yes, Dawkins can be wrong from time to time because he's a human and humans can be wrong sometimes.

[Paleophyte]

Dawkins was always a git and he hasn't aged well.

The poor guy has been pushed into an unfortunate position due to his need to remain consistent with what he's said before.

He's argued strongly and consistently that we should only accept as true the things that science can demonstrate. Science is our only means to discover what is true about the world. 

Science, of course, works through examining only the objective, the empirical, the quantifiable, the repeatable evidence that's available for testing. This means that for Dawkins, the only way to determine if someone is a man or a woman is to look at chromosomes, genitalia, pelvis structure, etc. -- the scientific markers for maleness or femaleness. 

Gender, on the other hand, cannot be examined and tested in this way. Therefore Dawkins cannot accept claims about gender which cannot be empirically and objectively evidenced. 

He has no choice but to deny that trans women are women, if he wants to stay consistent with his "only science tells the truth" conviction. If he were to accept that trans women are who they claim to be, he would have to give up his commitment to the idea that only empirical and objective evidence should be trusted.

I'm loving the absurdity of fundamentalists defending Dawkins for being a jackass. Onward good Christian haters! The Schadenfreude is so thick that you could cut it and sell it.

Ideology tells you that chromosomes are worth a damn for determining anything other than karyotype. There are women walking the Earth right now with a Y chromosome lurking in their cells and neither they nor you know it. Most people would rightly think a person crazy for referring to them as a male.

Science will tell you that even sex is more complicated than that. Gender is much more complex yet.

Dawkins isn't peddling anything other than his sad ideology.

[Belacqua]

I'm loving the absurdity of fundamentalists defending Dawkins for being a jackass.

Yes, many of the "science-only" fundamentalists agree with Dawkins, that in the absence of objective tests, we must conclude that gender always aligns with biological sex. It's not surprising.

What these science-only types have to recognize is that there are many things in the world which science can't address. Gender is one of these. But all of ethics is outside the realm of science, because there are no objective empirical tests a person can do to solve ethical questions. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, and simply declaring that philosophy is outmoded doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to make and justify our ethical choices. 


Krauss's new book should remind us that much of what gets presented to us as science is in fact riddled with ideology and political choices. Dawkins' chapter is certainly an example of that. Other essays in the book attempt to defend the modern state of Israel, because of course an attack on God's chosen people is... a part of the War on Science. Apparently. 

We should also keep in mind that Krauss defended his good friend Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER Epstein pled guilty to procuring minors for the purposes of prostitution. Most ethicists would argue that procuring minors for the purposes of prostitution is bad, but of course there is no scientific test to demonstrate this. 

So what the popular press in America presents to us as science should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Krauss's book is currently selling well on Amazon. (#11 in Science Essays & Commentary) The science-y veneer will fool some people. Many will fail to note that the book is published by Post Hill Press, distributed by Simon & Schuster, a small United States print and e-book publishing house that focuses on publishing "conservative politics" and Christian titles.

Science as currently practiced is far too often mixed up with politics and ideology and for-profit goals.

[Paleophyte]

I'm loving the absurdity of fundamentalists defending Dawkins for being a jackass.

Yes, many of the "science-only" fundamentalists agree with Dawkins, that in the absence of objective tests, we must conclude that gender always aligns with biological sex. 

That isn't science, it's picking criteria that align with their ideology despite the science. Science has no problem with gender, which is why the APA removed gender dysphoria from the DSM-V nearly two decades ago. The whole "Science can't determine... blah, blah, blah, blah" schtick is nothing more than a talking point from the far right. It's no more valid in this instance than it is when the creationists say the same things about fossils or speciation.

[Belacqua]

Yes, many of the "science-only" fundamentalists agree with Dawkins, that in the absence of objective tests, we must conclude that gender always aligns with biological sex. 

That isn't science, it's picking criteria that align with their ideology despite the science. Science has no problem with gender, which is why the APA removed gender dysphoria from the DSM-V nearly two decades ago. The whole "Science can't determine... blah, blah, blah, blah" schtick is nothing more than a talking point from the far right. It's no more valid in this instance than it is when the creationists say the same things about fossils or speciation.

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them say they are a woman. But one of them is lying -- he's really a man.

What scientific test can you apply to determine which one is lying?