The fact that science both shapes and is shaped by culture, society, economics, politics has been established and reinforced for nearly a century, from L. Fleck in the ‘30s to Kuhn in the ‘60s…to ± everything serious historians have written about science since then. The social construction of science is as solid as biological evolution. It’s an utter commonplace. Most scientists I know understand this.
An off the cuff blog entry about scientism written by someone who obviously can also write formally (if you follow the link to his essay in Nature).
I’m highlighting this today because the author’s comments suggest another aspect of scientism that I have touched on—the bullying, marginalizing and shaming tendencies that many climate change warriors seem to advocate without any regret or shame, themselves.
But he adds another wrinkle, suggesting this hostile and exclusionary approach can be traced back to the “male gaze” that historically has caused so much strife for women interested in pursuing science careers.
One last thing: @sapinker’s arrogant and bullying scientism is both a symptom and a cause of the WEIRD male gaze that’s dominated science for centuries.
For those not acquainted with cultural theory, the “male gaze” is not just about human beings with penises dominating vocations in science. It is about a supposedly superior male mindset of “rationality” “leadership” and “manliness” over the traditional female sex-role stereotype of feminine “irrationality,” “silliness” and “nurturance.”
How ironic that not a few women are now falling into this odious way of thinking and being but with a 21st-century twist.
It’s a bit of a cliche to say that women’s lib means women can now be just as offensive as men traditionally have been. And it’s not really true. There are some women’s lib advocates who believe in choice. That is, if they wish to be homemakers, then so be it. They should be and without hassle or derision from other women.
But I do not want to go too far into that discussion right now. I simply wish to point out that there might be some truth to the idea that the ‘church of climate change‘ reinforces old oppressive patterns of thinking and behaving once more visibly ‘male’ than in today’s reality of gender ‘sexplosion,’ if you will.