Even if a difference does exist, is it worth publishing, knowing that you are perpetuating patriarchy?
The consequentialistic problem with a scientist not publishing truthfully because this truth will help perpetuate some injustice, is that the scientist’s word becomes worthless when the truth will help destroy some other injustice… For every injustice-destroying truth they reveal, their opponents will be able to claim “Of course, they never reveal those results that don’t suit their political purposes”.
In another forum I’ve talked about “shallow” and “deep” egalitarianism. To demand that people of group A and people of group B must be treated with equal respect because these groups are in their nature identical in all measurable characteristics is shallow egalitarianism. The deeper egalitarianism is that you should treat people as individuals, not judge them on what group they belong to, even when those groups are measurably differently in average.
The shallow egalitarianism is eventually a failing and unsustainable proposition because it rests on factually false premises. People should choose the deeper egalitarianism which doesn’t require any false claims, and is therefore sustainable in the long term.
The problem is that EY doesn’t see his struggle as a political one, so most of his stuff about “politics” is hugely irrelevant to someone who actually does care about politics. I’m a rationalist because I want to win in my particular political struggles.
The consequentialistic problem with a scientist not publishing truthfully because this truth will help perpetuate some injustice, is that the scientist’s word becomes worthless when the truth will help destroy some other injustice… For every injustice-destroying truth they reveal, their opponents will be able to claim “Of course, they never reveal those results that don’t suit their political purposes”.
In another forum I’ve talked about “shallow” and “deep” egalitarianism. To demand that people of group A and people of group B must be treated with equal respect because these groups are in their nature identical in all measurable characteristics is shallow egalitarianism. The deeper egalitarianism is that you should treat people as individuals, not judge them on what group they belong to, even when those groups are measurably differently in average.
The shallow egalitarianism is eventually a failing and unsustainable proposition because it rests on factually false premises. People should choose the deeper egalitarianism which doesn’t require any false claims, and is therefore sustainable in the long term.
I see your point, and I have to say I hadn’t thought of it before. I still think I’m right, but I’ll have to consider this further.
Consider reading A Fable of Science And Politics if you’ve not already done so.
I did years ago when I first read the sequences.
The problem is that EY doesn’t see his struggle as a political one, so most of his stuff about “politics” is hugely irrelevant to someone who actually does care about politics. I’m a rationalist because I want to win in my particular political struggles.