147
Harvard author Steven Pinker appears on podcast linked to scientific racism (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Psychologist and writer’s appearance on Aporia condemned for helping to normalise ‘dangerous, discredited ideas’

The Harvard psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker appeared on the podcast of Aporia, an outlet whose owners advocate for a revival of race science and have spoken of seeking “legitimation by association” by platforming more mainstream figures.

The appearance underlines past incidents in which Pinker has encountered criticism for his association with advocates of so-called “human biodiversity”, which other academics have called a “rebranding” of racial genetic essentialism and scientific racism.

Pinker’s appearance marks another milestone in the efforts of many in Silicon Valley and rightwing media and at the fringes of science to rehabilitate previously discredited models of a biologically determined racial hierarchy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

well yeah if you cherrypick a two sentence synopsis you can make anything sound ridiculous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

...criticisms include disputes about the testability of evolutionary hypotheses, cognitive assumptions such as massive modularity, vagueness stemming from assumptions about the environment that leads to evolutionary adaptation, the importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues in the field itself.

those are all pretty significant criticisms.

regarding the racism specifically, you need to read between the lines. of course they're not going to outright admit they are being racist. But when you are dealing with unfalsifiable/non-empiracle hypotheses, while over-emphasising biology (race/sex), that's not science, that's politics wrapped in a scientific facade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, that information was not on the page you linked me. I didn't realize it was reasonable to expect people to go spelunking in your links to find the actual information you're trying to gesture vaguely at without laying it out explicitly in the first place for some reason.

    Also, other than vague 'political and ethical issues' none of that has anything to do with racism, which was your initial claim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Firstly, I am a different person adding to the discussion.

    Secondly, you do have the ability to look into things beyond what you are directly given by others. you have the entire internet at your disposal. That criticism page was one click away from the original article, hardly "spelunking" if you were legitimately interested in criticism of the field. I figured I would help you out with a little more information, and you downvote. So something tells me you aren't actually interested in learning anything here, just burying comments you don't like.

    Lastly, as i said, you need to do some reading between the lines. Obviously no one is going to present their field in an overtly racist manner. All the criticism above leads to politiziation in the field, including racism. When you are not bound by empirical science, personal biases fill the void.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Firstly, I am a different person adding to the discussion.

    My apologies, I didn't notice the different name.

    Secondly, you do have the ability to look into things beyond what you are directly given by others.

    The ability, certainly. The time or inclination, not so much. Sorry, if people can't be bothered to do the legwork to support their own arguments I'm certainly not going to do it for them; if you're going to cite me a source to back up your argument the evidence you claim is on that page should actually be on that page, not buried in some link halfway down it.

    and you downvote.

    Actually I didn't downvote; I almost never downvote unless the comment is trolling or being a shitlord or whatever.

    So something tells me you aren’t actually interested in learning anything here, just burying comments you don’t like.

    What I'm interested in learning is why the person who replied initially thinks evolutionary psychology as a field his racist, because that was the initial - rather extraordinary - claim, for which I have yet to see any evidence. I am not at all surprised to learn that a scientific field (especially one within the field of psychology) has critics, and while I'm sure those criticisms are valid and interesting, it's kinda beside the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent