Alan Sokal (Boston, USA, 1955) became famous in 1996 for the publication of a deliberately truffled article of nonsense in the Journal of Humanities ‘Social Text’. The text, which sustained without shame that gravity is a social construct instead of a … Scientific reality, intended to highlight postmodern intellectuals, willing to publish anything Florida that apparently supported their prejudices. Almost thirty years later, this Mathematics Professor at the University College of London and Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of New York, believes that science, which must be dedicated to seeking “the truth, even if it is uncomfortable,” suffers even more ideological threats. On the one hand, the most obvious, the manifest harassment of President Donald Trump. On the other, a less known, which comes from the same academic system and that worries him greatly. Still controversial, he explained it at a conference on Wednesday at the Ramón Areces Foundation in Madrid. He has no hairs on his tongue, despite whom weigh.
– Is science going through a more dangerous moment than when the ‘Sokal scandal’ occurred?
“Yes, no doubt.” For two reasons. The first, the one we all know, are the attacks against universities and academic freedom that the Trump administration is committed in the USA. The freezing of funds is undermining a lot of important research in medicine and other fields. That is very dangerous and probably illegal.
“Was the president going to go so far?”
—The last month there was a debate organized by the Committee for Academic Freedom on the consequences of Trump’s second mandate. I already argued that they would be bad, but since then things have worsened: attacks on the universities of Columbia and Harvard … we will see what the courts dictate, but for the moment 2,000 million dollars of investigation funds are frozen. It is an incredible political interference in academic freedom, typical of Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey, and perhaps worse than what happened in the United States at the time of macartism.
Donald Trump
A disgusting individual, unable to be president. What he said about gametes and sex is his only truth
“What is the second threat?”
—The who emanates from within the scientific community, of people who call themselves progressive but who, in my opinion, maintain ideas that are not at all. They have to do, above all, with sex and gender. There are biologists that in their public interventions upset scientific facts that know perfectly to sustain the cause of transgender people. I agree to protect those people from discrimination and harassment, but not to deform reality.
“What do you mean exactly?”
—All the American medical establishment [la Asociación Médica Estadounidense (AMA), la Academia Estadounidense de Pediatría (AAP) o la Asociación Estadounidense de Psiquiatría (APA)] He says that sex is something “assigned to birth.” What the hell does that mean? In biology, sex is defined by reproductive abilities. In mammals, each individual produces only one type of gametes. Those who produce ovules are called females and those that produce sperm, males. Sex is a biological fact, not something assigned to birth. And disrupt this to sustain a political cause is not justified. If a cause is fair, it can be defended in full recognition of reality. If this cannot be done, then the cause is not fair. I wrote an article about this with Richard Dawkins – one of the most famous biologists in the world – and was rejected by the ‘New York Times’ and the ‘Washington Post’. In the end, we publish it in the ‘Boston Globe’.
Scientific credibility
How can people trust vaccines, about which there is medical consensus, if something as simple as sex is misrepresented?
—Cresses of Biology Societies in the US wrote an open letter against Trump’s executive order on sex.
– Those researchers use hundreds of times the male and female words in their scientific articles, but in their letter against Trump they say that sex is more than male and female. It is hypocritical and very dangerous that scientists, who must devote themselves to the search for truth, upset scientific facts to sustain a political cause.
Editorial censorship
– Does the decision of the Supreme of the United Kingdom that limit the legal definition of women to biological sex?
-Yeah. It is a complicated decision, but uses the legal principle that a term must make the same meaning when used many times in a law. Sex cannot mean at the same time legally certified sex and biological sex. It would have strange results.
—In his talk, he shows against gender identity.
—The gender identity is an outdated, reactionary and antifminist concept that puts head down what we learned 50 years ago from feminist and gay movements. For example, a girl who likes to play with cars and repair engines is not a boy ‘in the wrong body’. She is a girl who has atypical interests for her sex. Likewise, a boy who is attracted to another boy is not a girl ‘in a wrong body’. He is a boy with atypical interests for his sex. And those interests must be respected.
“Is there anything that justifies the intervention of ideology in science?”
—Apprue the fact that our political and social ideas can influence the selection of the fields that we want to investigate. For example, I have more or less left ideas, so I am completely in favor, for example, to investigate the correlation between social class and diseases, or between social class and educational development. But ideology should not influence the evaluation of the scientific rigor of works. Or in the decision to publish them or not. That must depend on its quality, not on finding its results pleasantly or not politically. However, there are indications that ideology could further influence the future. For example, I notice a new policy of the ‘Nature’ magazine for which editors reserve the right of -I will say it openly -censor. They do not use that word, but it means censoring correct scientific works that, in their opinion, undermine the dignity of some human group. This policy could be very dangerous.
Gender identity
It is a reactionary concept. A girl who likes to play with cars is not ‘in the wrong body’
“What consequences does all this have on the population?”
“Socava the credibility of science.” How can people trust vaccines, in which there is medical consensus, if the simplest facts about sex are clearly misrepresented? Trump’s iliberalism is, in part, an exaggerated and much more dangerous reaction against the illiberalisms of the supposed left. Part of Trump’s voters have rebelled against the imposition of ‘progressive’ ideas that they judge erroneous. For example, one of Trump’s most successful advertisements was “Kamala Is for They/Them, president Trump is for you” (“Kamala is for them, President Trump is for you”, in reference to the support of the candidate for transsexual persons). When I heard that, I knew we had lost the choice. As Dawkins says, Trump is a disgusting individual, totally unable to be president, but his statement that sex is determined by gametes is the only truth he has said.
“How is a unscathed for that confrontation?”
“I would like to fight the two exaggerations and advocate for respect for the objective facts.” And then we can discuss political issues. For example, the question of men in women’s sport. I have my ideas, but other people may have others.
“It does not seem easy in the era of post -truth, where everything is relative.”
“Yes, it’s very worrying.” It is increasingly difficult to distinguish the truth from their deformations, from pure political inventions. There is honestly wrong information and also intentionally false information. And on the network everything looks.
“How can we fight that false information?”
“Maybe the solution goes through educating children.” As adults, “to learn to distinguish the different levels of credibility from what they read and to respect the opinions of experts.” The problem is that, sometimes, those same experts do not take care of distinguishing when they speak as scientists or as citizens. One thing is a scientist who studies climate change and talks about the facts, and another thing is to talk about what policies should be in this regard, which also depend on values.
—In 2015, retracting studies did not reach 2000. In 2023 there were 10,000. The increase in ‘papers’ factories and false studies does not help trust science.
“No, of course.” There are intentionally falsified studies, probably rare. There are discounted studies or where empirical facts are selected and not all reported. And then, what is more common in all fields, are mediocre, low level studies. But freedom of debate in the scientific community and the replication of experiments help discover what are the incorrect results. A problem is when scientists or their universities rush in the publication of their results, without being confirmed by other researchers, by economic pressures, to obtain funds … that is dangerous. They are pressures that have long since become acute for the competition. For scientific work to be confirmed, it is often needed ten or twenty years.
“What happened in the future?”
“You have to have hope.” People like me who are fighting against both sides are not alone. What has happened in the United Kingdom with the identity law demonstrates it.
“He has always been very critical of religion, is it still?”
“Yes, I am a married Jewish atheist with a Catholic atheist (laughs).” But yes, I am still critical of religion. It is one of the many dangers in the world.
.
#Alan #Sokal #physical #male #female #rest #ideology
