Academic discourse
J.A. alerted us to a back and forth between a philosopher and a biologist a few days ago. Here’s how it ended on day one:
Here’s how a new chapter started yesterday:
Earth. How about the earth – it definitely predates societies, because otherwise where would the societies have been? No earth, no societies, yeah? Ok, so the earth. Right. Is the earth a social construct? Hell yes! Look at globes! And photos in National Geographic. Therefore, trans women are women. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Bogardus continues:
By the way, it doesn’t have to be Saturn’s rings. Or the earth.
It’s just more grabby if you replace “something” (or the ever-popular X) with planetary rings, or the earth.
I read the whole thing before Myers flounced.
I think that Bogardus’ reasoning is correct, but if he truly wishes to understand Myers’ point of view re gender identity, he should perhaps ask himself the same questions and substitute ‘sexes’ with ‘gods’.
I believe (now), as does – presumably – Myers, that gods are social constructs, and don’t pre-date human societies. Believers like Bogardus are convinced that they aren’t social constructs, and pre-date the entire universe (or, at least, he appears to believe that one god does), but perhaps some beliefs about them are social constructs. Myers seems to have equated belief in the sexes to belief in gods, and that sexes cannot exist outside the belief systems, let alone independent of them.
And here I thought it was going to be the philosopher who would be embarrassed by the biologist.
tigger – hmmm. That’s a very interesting point. I wonder if Bogardus does believe that. I know he describes himself as a traditional Catholic, but he didn’t cite “God” for his illustration – by saying for instance that the “God” presented in holy books is a social construction but actual “God” is not. I wonder what he does think about it.
I’ve often found that some of the tools in the philosopher’s toolbox are somewhat incompatible with nonphilosophers. People get hung up on examples chosen for expedience, stumble over reductio ad absurdum, and trip on thought experiments. Formalizing arguments is basically right out, but even just converting claims to categorical sentences and such usually doesn’t work out. Trying to get someone to see that there’s a difference between reference (i.e., a concept of a thing) and referent (i.e., the thing itself) is often frustratingly difficult enough. Never mind trying to constrain discussion to one or the other. Certainly don’t try to distinguish between epistemological questions and ontological ones. It just comes off as though you’re quibbling about what the meaning of the word is is. (Which is actually a legitimate quibble.)
It’s why I had to laugh when someone accused me of lacking nuance regarding inclooosion.
Oh jeez. Funny thing, N i V – PZ’s horde raged at me for doing exactly that – distinguishing between trans as ontology and as epistemology. That was one of the “get out of here” moments that annoyed me the most – the sheer anti-intellectualism of it. (Well, I say “horde,” but it was just one of them. But nobody disagreed!)
I did try to find out what he actually believed, by watching a very long YouTube video purporting to be exactly that. Unfortunately, his interlocutor was also a male, bearded philospher, and I learned as much from either of them about anything as I would have learned about the theory of music had I slept through a modern jazz jam session. Or had I simply slept through the video, come to that.
Videos are so much slower than reading. I get impatient with them about 20 seconds in unless they’re unusually brilliant in some way.
Wow, Peezy is a scientist who is engaged in actual scientific research. Is this what scientists do? I mean in a recent back and forth with another apparent scientist, I think I’ve lost a certain amount of respect. Instead of arguing his case, he says “buh bye, liar”? That’s some kind of dismissive tone to what appears to be a question in good faith. I don’t know if being a condescending, insulting know-it-all is a job requirement for experimental scientific researchers, and I’ll admit, I don’t know any personally, but these kinds of interactions sure do say something about the inability to think outside the bubble. Reminds me of the Trumpian definition of genius — “because I say so”. I guess Peezy won’t be joining the debate team any time soon.
No, it isn’t. I’ve known a number who weren’t…and a larger number who were, so draw your own conclusions on that.
Nullius @4 I mean without even getting into philosophical jargon or esoteric methodology there seems to be a limit to what some supposedly intelligent and highly educated people can absorb or respond to in an intelligent way. I don’t think I’m immune to mistakes or ignorance, or (oof) emotional rants, but still, the principle of charity and good faith arguments aren’t that difficult for most people, no matter what their education.
I’m rather cynical about PZ anymore, these days. During the great schism over at FtB he hemmed and hawed, refusing to commit to any position on things like the TWAW debate until it became apparent that at the very least he was going to lose followers and fellow bloggers, so he came down hard on the side of the aggressively pro-trans nitwits. It was already too late by that time, though, as the frothier of them had already decamped to their shiny new aggregator where thoughtcrime wouldn’t be tolerated. I’m not even convinced that PZ believes any of it, himself, but he has a tidy financial motive to seem like he does.
Thanks ikn @9 I sure hope not.
The very nasty person who goes by the name of “raven” on Dr. Myers’ blog called Bogardus “dumb” (I thought we were supposed to eschew all ableist language?), and then goes on to repeat the daft and false claim that 1.7% of the human population is intersex. Among other people who’ve shown this number up to be ridiculous is Kathleen Stock, who commented in an interview that the person who came up with that number so expanded the definition of intersex that it would include Dr. Stock herself, because she had lost an ovary as a adult!
Just spent some Amazon money on Berger and Luckman’s The Social Construction of Reality. It should be here in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, I can raise my blood pressure over Hoffman’s The Case Against Reality.
PZ is himself being spectacularly dishonest and I don’t get his motivation. Since I’ve known him, I looked up to him at first.
He knows better.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but at any point did Bogardus say that gender (cultural assumptions, expectations, habits, roles, etc. about the differences between men and women) is a social construction, but sex (m/f reproductive categories) is not? From what I’ve seen it looks like PZ is either focused only on gender and thinks Bogardus equates sex and gender — or PZ thinks sex and gender are the same thing and/or can’t be pried apart.
Which is pretty muddled, if so.
@Mike,
I’ve said this before, and I could be way off base, but it strikes me that PZ is motivated by his reputation as a liberal gadfly on campus. As such, he’s become popular with one cohort of students, and very unpopular with another, smaller cohort. If he came out on the “wrong” side of the trans debate, he’d lose his fans without gaining (m)any new ones, and possibly lose his job. So he says (very loudly) what he thinks he needs to say, regardless of whether he believes it.
I don’t have any evidence for that impression, but it would make sense.
Excuse me as I wipe the last few drops of Lysol from behind my ears, I’ve just hopped out of a bath of it.
Yes, against my better judgement, I looked in there for the first time since I can’t remember when. I had hoped it might have improved, but no, not at all. Myers is just as narcissistic as those cocks in frocks he defends.
Mano had an article on “Yet another person creating a fake ethnic background” along the lines of Ophelia’s earlier post. But Mano isn’t self-assured enough to join the dots between one type of appropriation and another.
Can’t afford any more Lysol, won’t be going back to that swamp again.
You’re braver than I am. Thank you for descending into the bowels of the internet so we don’t have to.
@What a Maroon –
It’s not out of the question! He may even be afraid of his own horde.
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Sastra, last night I read all his replies to everyone, including Myers, and Bogardus doesn’t use the word gender at all. Much of his time is taken up with arguing the difference between ontology and epistemology with regards to the planets.
a scientist who _was_ engaged. Somehow publishing your results is a requirement of _doing research_. If you don’t go to that level of completion, there is no way to judge the research conducted and knowledge produced. This is harsh and elitist, but on the other hand doing research is harsh and elitist, often in ways most people would not bear.
There is nothing that would prevent a working scientist to publish somehow non-fancy results in non-fancy outlets if there is something to publish. I do that without any remorse, even If I know some people will take notice that I am not a rocket scientist, which is not insulting because I am not one.
PZ published very sound research. Decades ago.
As a last note, as a form of disclaimer, admittedly I have never been impressed by his stands neither. There are obviously issues where he behaved dogmatically when I was much younger, and it felt. It’s nice, I do have stands in the opposite side of these issues. Disagreeing is not the issue. Bad faith can be though, and it felt a lot like it was there then.
Seems like, while not a requirement, it is a working proxy for “seeming good at what you do” which will land you a job in the profession. Many of us are unbearable (as I might be, actually, at least some time), and many of us enjoy looking like smart-asses even when we often do not look that smart.
Indeed, disagreement and bad faith are different things but they can get SO tangled up together.
I don’t know anything about him other than following a few links from here and consequently having a few tl;dr moments. I’m not a fan of insects though, that might be part of it. I was under the impression that he currently does research on spiders, but then again I don’t know. It looks like he spends time proffering opinions quite a lot, but nothing wrong with that generally. I guess the phrase ‘resting on your laurels’ is an actual thing though. I just get perturbed at people who can’t participate in a discussion in a civil fashion. It makes me think they’re either being deliberately obnoxious, or elsewise unable to admit their own ignorance. Either way it’s unpleasant.
I am deliberately obnoxious sometimes (probably more often than I realize), usually resulting in remorse. None of us are perfect, but some of us like to keep on learning.
Thanks Laurent, you don’t seem unbearable to me, if that makes any difference. I enjoy intelligent people when they allow me to. ;)