Chapter XXXI: The Sociology Of Scientists | The Philosophy Of Science by Steven Gussman [1st Edition]

        “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

        – Attributed to Ayn Rand^I

        “I do not mean that philosophers were ordinarily present in universities any more than prophets or

        saints are ordinarily present in houses of worship.  But because those houses of worship are

        dedicated to the spirit of the prophets and saints, they are different from other houses.  They can

        undertake many functions not central to that spirit, but they remain what they are because of what

        they look up to, and everything they do is informed by that reverence.  But if the faith disappears,

        if the experiences reported by the prophets and saints become unbelievable or matters of

        indifference, the temple is no longer a temple, no matter how much activity of various kinds goes

        on in it.  It gradually withers and at best remains a monument, the inner life of which is alien to the

        tourists who pass idly through it.  Although the comparison is not entirely appropriate, the

        university is also informed by the spirit, which very few men can fully share, of men who are

        absent, but it must preserve respect for them.  It can admit almost anyone, but only if he or she

        looks up to and can have an inkling of the dignity of what is going on in it.  It is itself always in

        danger of losing contact with its animating principle, of representing something it no longer

        possesses.  Although it may seem wildly implausible that this group of rare individuals should be

        the center of what really counts for the university, this was recognized in the universities until only

        yesterday.  It was, for example, well known in the nineteenth-century German university, which

        was the last great model for the American university.  However bad universities may have been,

        however extraneous accretions may have weighed them down, there was always a divination that

        an Aristotle or a Newton was what they were all about.”
        – Allan Bloom^II

        Sociology is the study of the sociological structures and cultures of peoples, and we will get into the general science of this late in the “Ontology” volume.  But here in the “Epistemology” section, it is important that we talk about the culture of scientists, which, like in the general case, can depend on particular fields as well as periods of time.^III

        Much as expertise is often mistaken for authority, the sociology of scientists is almost always mistaken for science itself—both by laypeople and the so-called scientists in question (and I would be remiss not to point out the perverse incentive for a career scientist to prefer authority over the institutional and public perception of ontology).^IV  In both cases, this is a disastrous mistake.  One sees it when so-called “science communicators” (or “SciComm”) discuss how to persuade the public into believing certain ontological claims, the biggest examples being anthropogenic climate chance (and their preferred policy solutions) and widespread use of the covid-19 mRNA-vaccines.^V  Not only does their persuasive program not include educating the public in epistemology and then presenting them with the evidence to apply it to, it most often explicitly rejects such a program, with article and paper after article and paper about how evidence (logos) does not change people's minds; only emotional appeals do (pathos).^VI  Of course people on average do not act like scientists, but instead as the animal we are: homo sapiens, but alleged scientists measuring this obvious effect and then using it as evidence for why they should behave less like scientists and more like animals is the height of over-educated stupidity.^VII  These people do not mean to “communicate” the epistemology of science (if they are even aware of it), they mean to “communicate” their pet portion of the provisional ontology of science (particularly those which align with their politics or other special interests); they are manipulators and not educators in this capacity, and a disgrace to the legacy of the real “science communicators” (usually called “popularizers” or “public educators” in their time): the likes of Sagan and Dawkins.^VIII

        This all points towards the larger problem with the very word, “science.”  Its abuses are enough to push someone to an allergy towards using it on its own—I will often speak of, “philosophy of science,” “the scientific method,” or “the scientific ethic” in the hopes of not misusing it (nor adding further confusion) myself.  Yet I do think that it is important we be able to take back and use the words, “science,” “scientific,” and, “scientist,” properly.  “Science” on its own ought generally be used to mean “philosophy of science”—in reference to either epistemology or ontology.  Among the worst uses are when “science” is personified by researchers and the press alike, as in, “science says,” or “science suggests,” or, “according to science,” (almost always in reference to some silly pop claim, say, that moderate daily wine or chocolate is or isn't good for one's long-term health, when common sense suggests that the “moderate” amount in question almost certainly has little meaningful effect one way or another, and anyway that this is exactly the kind of claim where one would prefer a meta-analysis rather than the most recent small study).  One may say, “the science suggests,” when reporting the up-to-date state of the ontological research on a given topic, but to say, “science says such and such,” is not only aesthetically sophomoric, but strangely anthropomorphizing, and less than ideal given the provisional nature of truth and the oftentimes adversarial nature of opposing conclusions in an active field of research.  Similarly, when one makes a claim (often one that is politically flattering to one's own biases) before merely proclaiming that it is, “science,” or, “empirical,” they are abusing the terms and demonstrating disregard for the actual philosophy of science the terms are meant to refer to.  When one says that something is or isn't, “scientific,” they should merely be referring to whether it is an argument that is being made using the scientific method (or otherwise a conclusion provisionally come to by way of that epistemology).^IX  One should typically wait until the evidence has set a fact or law as provisionally true before bothering to explicitly call it a, “scientific finding;” there are such things as scientific speculations but these are to be taken with a grain of salt (or rather with the low-weight of evidence at their back's), and it is better in these cases to merely present the idea and arguments in favor and against it without necessarily proclaiming it to be, “scientific,” or not (the word “science” is not a cudgel-of-authority, the scientific quality of one's claims should generally be self-evident).  Such speculations, along with all lines of research on open questions (in which there is no accepted provisional answer yet) are all a part of the scientific process, but are not yet valid, “scientific answers,” to the questions that motivated them.  Likewise, it is philosophically illegal to attempt to relegate certain classes of philosophy as outside of the domain of science altogether, say to proclaim that moral or religious questions are, “un-scientific,” or, “non-scientific,” as a way of shielding one's cherished ideas from scrutiny.^X  Finally, the word, “scientist,” should be understood to describe a person while they are performing the scientific method or otherwise embodying the scientific ethic, and not when they are not.^XI  While no one is perfect, I do believe the great scientists have tended to essentially earn the title of, “scientist,” for their entire lives, but most simply do not even aspire to this lifestyle and instead treat their field's parochial methodology as something to be done at work, and at work only—yet these people want not just expertise but authority conferred by their title as “scientist” regardless of the philosophy at play at a given time or on a given topic.^XII  A “scientist” is not merely someone who identifies as one, nor is it someone who has one-time earned scientific credentials, nor even is it someone who is a working scientist: a scientist is someone who generally embodies the lifestyle of the scientific ethic, or otherwise is someone while they are performing the scientific method.  Many a PhD are evidently not the scientists they say they are; but after reading this book, you could be a scientist, tomorrow.

        I'm afraid that the present need for this book (and the course I hope to pitch based upon it) is the result of our scientists, rather than having explicitly been given courses in the philosophy of science, having merely picked up the culture, or the sociology of the other “scientists” around them—that of their teachers, peers, and colleagues.^XIII  Of course in-practice, the scientific enterprise necessarily has an attendant culture because its practitioners are fallible men, but if it is to actually be science that is practiced, this culture's evolution cannot be left to a “natural selection” in the sense that there is no reason to believe the unguided selection pressures would select towards truth-seeking (whether it was simple genetic fitness or some kind of memetic fitness as is sometimes proposed).^XIV  The scientific epistemology, the scientific method, evolved over time not chiefly through random mutation nor serving some kind of “catchiness” (like a song you cannot get out of your head) but through directed attempts to make sense that were then empirically checked by the results of their manifestation in observation and experiment.^XV  The tools of this epistemology are used on itself as a body of knowledge as well on the ontological body of knowledge, as a sieve through which only the provisional truth can survive.^XVI  If those with the credentials of a ,“scientist,” or those with the job description of, “scientist,” or those who simply identify as, “scientists,” do not embody this scientific ethic individually (and therefore combine into a proper sociology of scientists), then the label “science” is a meaningless mis-attribution in such cases.^XVII

        Unfortunately, this is not just an academic point, as it appears to describe the behavior of large swathes of academics in real life.  It is not just the “SciComm” types who have eschewed the scientific ethic.  There is not an in-principle divide between the hard or natural sciences, and the so-called soft, social sciences, but unfortunately, there is presently one in-practice.^XVIII  Even putting many of the humanities aside (given the known two-cultures problem),^XIX many of the actual researchers and professors in the social sciences are either proud anti-scientists or otherwise proud political actors (all the while calling what they are doing “science”).^XX  The issue at present tends to be overwhelmingly left-wing political bias, though just as with general culture, the culture of scientists gives way to subcultures in different times and places.  Not only have non-scientists in the past attempted to place a patina of scientific credibility to their ideas (Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler's genocide of the Jewish people was famously called, “social Darwinism,” and (mis)used the term, “survival of the fittest,” despite the fact that it had nothing to do with evolutionary theory—and if it had, evidently, the Nazis were selected out when they lost World War II),^XXI but alleged “scientists” have themselves done so as well—take phrenology, for example.  Phrenology was never a serious scientific idea in that it was always speculation without evidence (and as time has gone on, its speculative predictions have tended to be falsified in favor of alternative explanations).^XXII  Phrenology was generally just wrong, a group of hypotheses both about where mental modules existed in the brain and, worse, about the alleged relationship between grooves in the skull and certain psychometrics.^XXIII  This idea (already wrong on its own, as it turns out) then had the biases of their time grafted on in the form of claims about the distribution of superior and inferior grooves (and consequent psychometrics) among the races (again, a claim that was neither theoretically nor empirically suggested, that is, a claim that never came from the scientific method).^XXIV  In the 1940s, when Feynman (a Jew working on The Manhattan Project for America to beat the Nazis to the invention of the nuclear-bomb) was a new professor at Cornell, an unwitting humanities professor actually visited his office advertising a university club for Nazi-apologists!^XXV  Between 1953 and 1998, profit-seeking corporations lobbied researchers and medical doctors to make it appear as though cigarettes were not unhealthy (if not down-right good for you!) from a “scientific” perspective.^XXVI  In the 1980s, Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan (and First Lady Nancy Reagan) allegedly used an astrologer to aide them in decision-making.^XXVII  Of course, many political-conservarives have spent recent decades in denial about the reality of anthropogenic climate change (not just questions about the reliability of computer simulations of climate, or of our policy responses to it, both concerns I share).^XXVIII  In 2019, Republican President Donald Trump is alleged to have taken a sharpie to a scientific graph to produce fraudulent “data”.^XXIX  But by 2022, these are the opposite of the biases currently in power over academia (and most other institutions) in the west.^XXX  Historically, much of left-wing pseudo-science stems from German philosopher Karl Marx's hypotheses surrounding his concept of communism (a normative hypothesis masquerading as a descriptive one which has been continuously empirically falsified over the centuries).^XXXI  Marx thought that societies would naturally evolve from capitalist economic systems to socialist economic systems and finally to communist economic systems (this is false, this series of events has only ever occurred unnaturally while citing Marx) and that this economic system would be prosperous for all (this is false, market economies tend to have greater prosperity for many more people, and without the authoritarian central-control suffered by the populations of communist countries).^XXXII  The basic market economics at the root of capitalism stem from homo sapiens' heterogeneous genetic makeup (we are not clones of the rest of our society, like many ant and wasp species are), and is replicated across the animal kingdom in the form of reciprocal altruism; just about all creatures trade fitness favors only when it benefits the fitness of both parties.^XXXIII  Interestingly and famously, as a part of communist Soviet Russia, “biologist” Trofim Denisovich Lysenko eschewed the scientific method and attempted to will his agricultural hypotheses into reality, leading to mass starvation when he was favored over the actual biologist Nikolay Ivanovich Vavilov, who the state later, “deliberately and slowly starved to death”.^XXXIV  Yet many social “scientists”, as of 2007, identify as “Marxists” (and still more effectively are Marxists, but do not identify that way because they do not even know their own educational and political influences); and it is clear that the political left dominates overall in academia.^XXXV  Many political views are predicated on the unconstrained vision of human nature, that we are born as blank slates and that we can be taught and raised to behave and think in any way we may want to socially engineer (and this kind of control is required for economic communism or philosophical postmodernism to work, because they go against our nature).^XXXVI  Social scientists have in recent history espoused relativism (especially emanating from the anthropologists for whom effective relativism began as a way to live among and observe tribes of people without interfering due to moral concerns);^XXXVII pathologized conservativism and correlated personality traits;^XXXVIII claimed that there is no biological basis for race in human beings;^XXXIX denied evolved sex differences in humans as well as other facets of evolutionary psychology (which suggests an innate structure to the brain);^XXXX and more—all wrongfully in the name of “science” (while the humanities types that they tend to agree with are far more clear-eyed and explicit about the fact that their postmodernism is anti-science).^XXXXI  It is these humanities-like social scientists who, in the name of, “science,” defy the principles of philosophy of science laid out in this book: they argue in favor of chaos over cosmos;^XXXXII wax poetic about the supposed limits of reason and logic;^XXXXIII know little-to-nothing of mathematics, computation, or information; prefer relativism and radical subjectivity to objectivity;^XXXXIV often have explicit political motives (and often claim that every given topic or claim is inherently political in nature, as an excuse) rather than even attempt dispassionate analysis;^XXXXV might as well subscribe to supernature as their relativism explicitly does not preclude a tribal mythos from being, “equally true,” to the state-of-the-art science of a given topic;^XXXXVI never engage in empirical tests of their speculations and often make claims directly counter to the empirical evidence; treat their own beliefs as dogmatically true, are not open to scrutiny as provisional knowledge must be; do not believe in reductionism (one explicitly claiming sociology transcends the ontological stack to exist on its causal lonesome;^XXXXVII eschew consilience as a form of “scientism” or as a 'naive grand narrative';^XXXXVIII dislike deterministic mechanical philosophy for being too restrictive about what is possible; do not believe in laws because these would suggest and constrain regularities in the facts, which must remain relativistic; treat all of their politically motivated normative philosophy as descriptive; have no distinction between in-principle and in-practice because anything goes when the ends-justify-the-means; have no interest in elegance or complexity because they believe in an unknowable, irregular, complicated chaos; see no value in the conservative side of the philosophical balance, always seeking change and indiscriminately calling it, “progress;” do not engage in intellectual honesty because they do not believe anyone else does (can?) and because they believe they are doing everyone a favor by manipulating them into bringing about their utopia; have no standards for scrutiny and instead avoid any scrutiny of their own ideas while maintaining perfect skepticism towards those of the sciences; have no ethic because they see their role as the social engineering of others for their own good; cannot engage in real peer review because of their relativism; have no realistic null hypothesis as they compare to a utopian baseline; do not engage in approximation because they never bother to seriously mathematize their ideas in the first place;^XXXXIX set as one of their only guiding ideals the inversion of all common sense; are left only with their own biased heuristics (and indeed view all discussion as the zero-sum competition between the biases of the people involved in a fight for good and evil); and lack any methodology because again, they do not engage in dispassionate empiricism, experimental or otherwise.  Both the students and faculties of higher education are now heavily biased towards the political left-wing, further left than they used to be,^XXXXX and it seems likely that this effect is even worse yet among administrators (whom are continually replacing the Enlightenment values of these schools' core mission with political appeals to such platitudes as, “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” instead.^XXXXXI

        It is worth noting, that there are also sub-cultures in the sciences that are not necessarily deviations from the scientific path, in which it is not obvious that one is superior to the other.  For example, some have noted the difference in the cultures of English physicists and American physicists; whereas the English are more sensitive to the philosophy of physics and therefore to fundamental problems, Americans are more practical, more normative and engineering-based, not terribly motivated by or worried about philosophical implications (a shift that seems to have especially coincided with The Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb, which successfully ended World War II).^XXXXXII  Along those lines, Russians have made outsize contributions to astronomy (and especially space science) whereas Germans have done so for general engineering.^XXXXXIII  Temporally, there are also eras (like movements in art history)—for much of antiquity, the equivalent of physics, was the geometry of the solar system and its orbits; during and around the Enlightenment, the classical physics era, deterministic mechanical philosophy was the idea of the day.^XXXXXIV  Another shift has been away from the kind of generalization entailed by the liberal arts college and towards extreme specialization (which I also believe to have been a mistake).^XXXXXV  There are of course also awards institutions, most notably The Nobel Prizes in the sciences and The Fields Medal in mathematics, which strive to award the objectively best research out there.  As with anything else, this is impossible to live up to perfectly, in-practice, and much of the mechanisms in place for these awards have been criticized (such as, for example, the club-ish fact that Nobel laureates are among the few who get to nominate researchers for future Nobel Prizes).^XXXXXVI  Much of capital-P-R Peer Review has succumbed to standards and norms which have little to do with science, which can and does act as gate-keeping, and something of an infringement on the spirit of free inquiry.^XXXXXVII

        There are some proper underpinnings to any culture conducive to science: scientific liberalism (or scientific libertarianism): a political right and cultural ethic of freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry.^XXXXXVIII  Countries and institutions that stunt these values thereby stunt the scientific process.  And much like the confusions between science and the sociology of scientists, our institutions of science are sometimes understood backwards: rather than as institutions meant to teach, promote, and follow the scientific method, their claims are often just treated as scientific fact regardless of how they were arrived at.^XXXXXIX  When our scientific institutions devolve into bureaucracies serving ulterior motives, we have crossed a line into dangerous, and anyway unscientific, territory.

Footnotes:

0. The Philosophy Of Science table of contents can be found, here (footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2022/04/table-of-contents-philosophy-of-science.html).

I. See “The Quotable Ayn Rand: ‘You Can Avoid Reality, But …’” by Tom Bowden (Ayn Rand Institute) (2022) (https://newideal.aynrand.org/the-quotable-ayn-rand-you-can-avoid-reality-but/).

II. See The Closing Of The American Mind by Allan Bloom (Simon & Schuster) (1987) (pp. 272).

III. The more common term is the, “sociology of science,” (as in a specific example, “the sociology of physics,”), see for example the MIT Press description of Gravity's Kiss: The Detection Of Gravitational Waves by Harry Collins (MIT Press) (2017) (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262535120/gravitys-kiss/) (though I have not yet read this book) and “Bret And Heather 81st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Permission To Think” B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaKtBMk53Y) (15:31 – 38:34). I do not like this because it is a misuse of the word “science” (or “physics”), implying that these philosophies somehow have a sociological component in and of themselves. No, the scientists attempting to implement the science have a sociology, thus my preference for, “sociology of scientists”.

IV. See “Bret And Heather 81st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Permission To Think” B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaKtBMk53Y) (15:31 – 38:34).

V. See the “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory” chapter and The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 306, 335-336, 433-434). I myself, in reviewing the evidence, find that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem (though I often find popular policy proposals unrealistic or otherwise unjust), and that the covid-19 vaccines have so far appeared to have been effective without serious side-effects over two years of use and in hundreds of millions of Americans (billions of people worldwide), see “Climate Change 101” by Steven Gussman (Instagram) (2021) (https://www.instagram.com/p/CPr87x4gwGg/) which further cites The Physics Of Climate Change by Krauss; and Bing's “Covid-19 Tracker”: https://bing.com/covid. This is immaterial to the point I am making about the cultural ethic of scientific institutions, and the difference between being convinced by trusting authority versus being convinced by evidence.

VI. See my November 19th, 2018 tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1064643448358281216?s=20&t=Q1qOYBW3H_dTQ_tp1LhJiw, which criticizes the Center For Inquiry's (@center4inquiry) sharing the headline "George Clooney Can Probably Convince You That Evolution Is True: But Not Because He's An Expert" by Carly Cassella (ScienceAlert) (2018) (https://www.sciencealert.com/george-clooney-can-probably-convince-you-that-evolution-is-true) (though I have not read this article) which implies that it's wrong to believe celebrities on scientific matters not because you haven't been convinced by evidence, but simply because celebrities are not "experts" (a class of people who are presumably worthy of your blind faith); my February 12th, 2020 Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1227772371395923968?s=20&t=Q1qOYBW3H_dTQ_tp1LhJiw; and my December 15^th, 2020 Twitter interaction with chemist Ash Jogalekar (@curiouswavefn) about a tweet by Becker (@freelanceastro) that can no longer be seen due to changes in his privacy settings: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1338793366335737857?s=20&t=Q1qOYBW3H_dTQ_tp1LhJiw.

VII. See the “Dispassionate”, “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory”, and “The Scientific Ethic” chapters.

VIII. See the “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory” chapter.

IX. For example, someone conducting a messy, informal poll will often say that it “isn't scientific” but this isn't right; there is no reason to do anything un-scientific. The point they're trying to make is that it is extremely low-powered due to the slapdash methodology used. This is of course the case with my covid-19 vaccines survey, but that doesn't mean it isn't science, it just isn't very high quality, suggestive science. Further, my survey was designed to test B. Weinstein's rather extraordinary claim on the DarkHorse podcast that serious covid-19 vaccine injuries were so abundant that they should show up for everyone anecdotally (which my survey falsified; from the start, my hypothesis was that his being an mRNA-vaccine-critic was causing people to preferentially send him their complaints), see my June 26^th, 2021 tweet (and surrounding Twitter thread including my survey results) which includes a screen-shot of a since-deleted tweet by B. Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) in which his original claim about side-effects is made in nearly the same way as it had been on the podcast around that time: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1408660520962605057?s=20&t=Q1qOYBW3H_dTQ_tp1LhJiw.

X. Perhaps the ugliest such example is the term “scientism”, typically used by postmodern humanities professors (who do not even aspire to understand, let alone use, the scientific method) to describe the scientists who “trespass” onto topics allegedly in the exclusive domain of the humanities, to bring the proper epistemology to bare on such topics. I do not believe there is any legitimate use for this term, I believe it to be a manufactured slur against real scientific research into topics these scholars want to remain shrouded in relativism. See Consilience by E. O. Wilson (at least pp. 11-12); The Blank Slate by Pinker (at least pp. 198); Enlightenment Now by Pinker (at least pp. 34, 388-390, 392, 395); The Moral Landscape by Harris (pp. 46-47). This is related to biologist Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) in which he merely declares that science and religion cannot tread on each other's territory, see the “Natural Philosophy” chapter; the “Sophistry” chapter in The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2020/08/chapter-1-sophistry-sophistructure-0th.html#FN5A) which further cites The God Delusion by Dawkins (pp. 77-85, 127, 183); and The Moral Landscape by Harris (pp. 6).

XI. See the “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory” chapter which further cites Nye and “Your Experts Are Self-Serving Idiots | Ep. 1273” by Shapiro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFRTTNbXxGM) (15:27 – 17:43, 18:56 – 23:45, 24:52 – 28:07).

XII. See The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 297).

XIII. See for example "Bret And Heather 68th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Drunk Without Power - Or - Is That A Fact?" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2021) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ToP75eTKGQ&list=PLjQ2gC-5yHEug8_VK8ve0oDSJLoIU4b93) (4:24 – 6:23).

XIV. See “In Defense Of Philosophy (Of Science) by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-defense-of-philosophy-of-science.html#FN27A) which further cites To Explain The World by Weinberg (pp. 254).

XV. See “In Defense Of Philosophy (Of Science) by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-defense-of-philosophy-of-science.html#FN27A).

XVI. See “In Defense Of Philosophy (Of Science) by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-defense-of-philosophy-of-science.html#FN37B) which further cites To Explain The World by Weinberg (pp. 248); the “Conservativism And Progress” chapter which further cites Popper, The Ape That Understood The Universe by Stewart-Williams (pp. 268), and “When Ideas Have Sex” by Ridley (https://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex?language=en / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLHh9E5ilZ4); and the “Reason”, “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory”, “Intellectual Honesty”, “peer review”, and “Heuristics” chapters which further cite Cosmos by Sagan and Druyan (pp. xviii, 94, 194), The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 20-22, 230, 274-275, 414, 423); Cosmos: Possible Worlds by Druyan (pp. 75), The Ape That Understood The Universe by Stewart-Williams (pp. 229-230, 268), Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 7, 11, 26-28, 83, 127, 393, 408-409), and The Coddling Of The American Mind by Lukianoff and Haidt (pp. 109), “Recursion” by Montague (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27035) and “Fallibilism” by Curry (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27192), both from This Idea Is Brilliant edited by Brockman (pp. 61-62, 82-83); “Science Advances By Funerals” by Barondes (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25386) and “Planck's Cynical View Of Scientific Change” by Mercier (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25332), both from This Idea Must Die edited by Brockman (pp. 481-485), and “Science Must Destroy Religion” by Harris (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11122) in What Is Your Dangerous Idea? edited by Brockman (pp. 148-151).

XVII. See the “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory”, “Intellectual Honesty”, and “The Scientific Ethic” chapters which further cites Nye and “Your Experts Are Self-Serving Idiots | Ep. 1273” by Shapiro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFRTTNbXxGM) (15:27 – 17:43, 18:56 – 23:45, 24:52 – 28:07).

XVIII. As you will see in the “Ontology” volume, I will be taking the consilient hard-natural view of the higher-level sciences, rooting them in the neo-Darwinnian synthesis of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, as supported by the U.S. first amendment right to the freedom of speech, see the “Real Patriots Ask Questions” chapter in The Demon Haunted World by Sagan and Druyan (pp. 297, 421-434).

XIX. See the “Consilience” chapter which further cites “The Second Law Of Thermodynamics” by Pinker (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27023) in This Idea Is Brilliant edited by Brockman (pp. 17-20); Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 17, 33-34, 389-390, 455) which further cites The Two Cultures And The Second Law [sic] by Snow (pp. 14-15); and Consilience by E. O. Wilson (pp. 43, 136-137, 329).

XX. See The Blank Slate by Pinker; Scientist by Rhodes (pp 154-181, 207); The Moral Landscape by Harris (pp. 158-176); and Enlightenment Now by Pinker.

XXI. See for example my October 28^th, 2019 tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1188711221240979456?s=20&t=dWz2d3CkYXThsnIuYuZ2Lw.

XXII. See Cosmos: Possible Worlds by Druyan (pp. 152-154).

XXIII. See Cosmos: Possible Worlds by Druyan (pp. 152-154).

XXIV. See Cosmos: Possible Worlds by Druyan (pp. 152-154).

XXV. See “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!” by Feynman and Leighton (pp. 191-193, 196) and "Manhattan Project (Wikipedia) (accessed 12/18/2022) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project).

XXVI. See Post-Truth: The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series by Lee McIntyre (MIT Press) (2018) (pp. 21-27, 136) which further cites Merchants Of Doubt: How A Handful Of Scientists Obscured The Truth On Issues From Tobacco Smoke To Climate Change by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (Bloomsbury Publishing) (2011) (though I have not read this work). As the U.S. becomes more liberal about an individual's choice in drug use, we are probably going to see a similar (though less severe) series of events play out as we begin by fooling ourselves into thinking that smoking marijuana or vaping are not causing any damage to users' respiratory systems (in fact, often suggesting there are net benefits), despite continuous use from a young age.

XXVII. See The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 19).

XXVIII. See The Physics Of Climate Change by Krauss; Post-Truth by McIntyre (pp. 21-22, 27-33); Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 136-141); business mogul Donald J. Trump's (@realDonaldTrump) (who would go on to be elected President of the U.S.) November 6^th, 2012 tweet claiming that China made up global warming: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?s=20&t=mX2dKpYJC1AMy0pdaFTPPA; and my January 31^st, 2018 tweet criticizing Trump's denial of climate change: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/958905501189922816?s=20&t=vDm4hV2BY7TkZjLoTXrmHw.

XXIX. See "Washington Post: Trump Was The One Who Altered Dorian Trajectory Map With Sharpie" by Veronica Stracqualursi (CNN) (2019) (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/trump-sharpie-hurricane-dorian-alabama/index.html) which further cites "‘What I Said Was Accurate!’: Trump Stays Fixated On His Alabama Error As Hurricane Pounds The Carolinas by Toluse Olorunnipa and Josh Dawsey (The Washington Post) (2019) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-i-said-was-accurate-trump-stays-fixated-on-his-alabama-error-as-hurricane-pounds-the-carolinas/2019/09/05/32597606-cfe7-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html) and "Trump Altered Dorian Map To Show Storm Threatened Alabama" by Josh Wingrove and Jennifer Jacobs (Bloomberg) (2019) (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-04/trump-s-altered-dorian-map-shows-storm-threatening-alabama#xj4y7vzkg) (though I've read none of these articles in their entirety).

XXX. This is the major theme of my ongoing book The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2020/08/table-of-contents-sophistructure-0th.html). See also Saad's The Saad Truth podcast; political commentator Dave Rubin's show, The Rubin Report (particularly between about 2015 through 2018); The Ben Shapiro Show; Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay; Bret Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast; The Closing Of The American Mind by Bloom; The Coddling Of The American Mind by Lukianoff and Haidt; The Blank Slate by Pinker; The Madness Of Crowds by Murray; Enlightenment Now by Pinker; Consilience by E. O. Wilson; Scientist by Rhodes (pp 154-181, 207); Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (Harper & Brothers, Publishers / Harper Perennial Modern Classics) (1932 / 1946 / 1969 / 1989 / 1998 / 2006); Nineteen-Eighty-Four by George Orwell (Secker & Warburg) (1949) (though I haven't yet re-read this book since high school, and so I am unsure of whether I have read it in its entirety); Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (Ballantine Books / Del Rey) (1950-1953 / 1978-1979 / 1981-1982) (note that I am currently reading, and about halfway through this book); and “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut (The Magazine Of Fantasy And Science Fiction / BeLL / Internet Archive) (1961) (https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt) which featured in Welcome To The Monkey House by Kurt Vonnegut (Delacorte) (1968) (though I have not read this collection).

XXXI. See the “Marxism” chapter in The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/03/chapter-2-marxism-sophistructure-0th.html) which further cites The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (translator unknown) (Millennium Publications) (1848 / 2017) (pp. 3); "Ben Shapiro EDUCATES College Professors In An Epic Q And A” uploaded by YouTube user LibertyVoice (2019) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMBtvr_vyIk) (beginning at 00:43) (though this video appears to now be unavailable); The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 155, 158, 161, 246, 295-296, 302-304); and Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 78, 90-91, 247, 364-365, 459-460, 483).

XXXII. See the “Marxism” chapter in The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/03/chapter-2-marxism-sophistructure-0th.html) which further cites The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels; "Ben Shapiro EDUCATES College Professors In An Epic Q And A” by Shapiro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMBtvr_vyIk) (beginning at 00:43); The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 155, 158, 161, 246, 295-296, 302-304); and Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 78, 90-91, 247, 364-365, 459-460, 483).

XXXIII. See the “Marxism” chapter in The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/03/chapter-2-marxism-sophistructure-0th.html#FN3B) which further cites "Bret And Heather 38th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Adventures In Sneetch World” by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t85DTC44JE) (47:01-50:13) and The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 158, 302-304, 474) (which summarizes the arguments of, “economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis”); and most likely the “Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors” episode of Cosmos: Possible Worlds by Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan, and Brannon Braga (National Geographic / Fox / Cosmos Studios) (2020) (I know it was the episode in which reciprocal altruism in animals is explored).

XXXIV. See the “Vavilov” chapter in Cosmos: Possible Worlds by Druyan (pp.114-143, 381).

XXXV. One 2007 survey (N_Academics = 1,417; N_Institutions = 927) found that “extreme liberal” academics outnumbered “extreme conservative” academics by a factor of 7.8x, “liberals” generally outnumber “conservatives” by a factor of 3.2-4.6x, “liberal” social scientists outnumbered their conservative counterparts by a factor of 12x, “liberal” humanities academics outnumbered their “conservative” counterparts by a factor of 15x, while the only discipline for which this pattern is significantly reversed are the “business” academics whose “conservatives” outnumber their “liberal” counterparts by just 1.15x (and a majority identified as “moderate”), “strong Democrat” academics outnumbered their “strong Republican” counterparts by a factor of 6.5x, “Democrat” academics outnumber their “Republican” counterparts by a factor of 3.4-3.62x, and in fact, when it comes to the two major political parties, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in every field studied (social science: 8.4x, “other” fields: 5.23x, humanities: 5.10x, business: 1.61x, with the smallest being computer science and engineering: 1.20x), and 3.0% of academics identified as “Marxist” (social science: 17.6%, humanities: 5.0%), 11.2% of academics identify as “radical” (social science: 24.0%, humanities: 19.0%), see “Academic” section of “Marxism” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Academic), "The Prevalence Of Marxism In Academia" by Bryan Caplan (EconLib) (2015) (https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html), "Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives As College Professors" by Spencer Irvine (Accuracy In Academia) (2016) (https://www.academia.org/self-identifying-marxist-professors-outnumber-conservatives-as-college-professors/), "AEI Panel: Marxists Outnumber Conservatives In Social Sciences" by Jenna Lawrence (Campus Reform) (2016) (https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=7678), "Op-Ed: Do Universities Need Affirmative Action For Conservative Professors?" by Jon A. Shields, Joshua M. Dunn Sr. (Los Angeles Times) (2016) (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0320-shields-dunn-conservative-affirmative-action-20160320-story.html), and "Professors And Politics: What The Research Says" by Scott Jaschik (Inside Higher Ed) (2017) (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means)—all of which appear to (whether they realize it or not) further cite "The Social And Political Views Of American Professors" by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (ResearchGate) (2007) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228380360_The_Social_and_Political_Views_of_American_Professors) published in Professors And Their Politics edited by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons (Johns Hopkins University Press) (2014) (pp. 19-52) (though I have not read these works in their entirety). Another study (N_Academics = 5,116-8,688; N_Institutions = 51 “of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges”) from 2017-2018 found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the academy by a factor of 10.4x, with no field in which this pattern is reversed (communications: 108:0, anthropology: 56:0, english: 48.3x, sociology: 43.8x, psychology: 16.8x, poli-sci: 8.2x, computers: 6.3x, economics: 5.5x, and the smallest margin, engineering: 1.6x), see "A Profusion Of Place | Part I: Of Unity And Philosophy" by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-profusion-of-place-part-i-of-unity.html#FN66A) which further cites "Political Affiliations Of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty" by Mitchell Langbert (Academic Questions) (2018) (https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_facult) (though I have not yet read this research article in its entirety). Indeed, Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) studies (N_Academics = 23,824-33,986; N_Institutions = 384-417) reveal that the political left:right ratio in academic faculty increased from a factor of 2x in the mid-'90s to a factor of 5x by 2011, see (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-profusion-of-place-part-i-of-unity.html#FN67B) which further cites The Coddling Of The American Mind by Lukianoff and Haidt (pp. 110-111, 298) which in turn cites The American College Teacher: National Norms For 1995-96 HERI Faculty Survey Report by Linda J. Sax et al. (UCLA / HERI) (1996) (https://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/FAC/Norms/Monographs/TheAmericanCollegeTeacher1995To1996.pdf) (pp. 1_Physical or 10_PDF, 93_Physical or 102_PDF) and Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI Faculty Survey by Sylvia Hurtado et al. (UCLA / HERI) (2012) (https://heri.ucla.edu/monographs/HERI-FAC2011-Monograph.pdf) (pp. 2_Physical or 7_PDF, 58_Physical or 63_PDF) (though I have not read these works aside from checking the data in their tables to confirm Lukianoff's and Haidt's claims). The 5x left-right ratio replicates in the most recent HERI study (N_Academics = 20,771; N_Institutions = 143), see Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2016-2017 HERI Faculty Survey by Ellen Bara Stolzenberg et al. (UCLA / HERI) (2019) (https://heri.ucla.edu/monographs/HERI-FAC2017-monograph.pdf) (pp. 2_Pysical or 7_PDF, 38_Pysical or 43_PDF, 62_Pysical or 67_PDF) (though again, I have not yet read this work outside of checking the relevant data-table). See also Post-Truth by McIntyre (pp. 21-22, 24-25, 29-30, 136) which further cites Merchants Of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway; and The Blank Slate by Pinker.

XXXVI. See A Conflict Of Visions by Sowell; and the “Marxism” chapter in The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/03/chapter-2-marxism-sophistructure-0th.html#FN3B) which further cites "Bret And Heather 38th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Adventures In Sneetch World” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t85DTC44JE) (47:01-50:13) and The Blank Slate by Pinker (at least pp. 158, 302-304, 474).

XXXVII. See The Moral Landscape by Harris (pp. 18-21, 27, 36, 45-46, 151, 191, 197-198, 204-206) which further cites "The Facts Fetish" by Thomas Nagel (The New Republic) (2010) (https://newrepublic.com/article/78546/the-facts-fetish-morality-science) and "Book Review: Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape" by Russell Blackford (Journal Of Evolution & Technology) (2010) (https://jetpress.org/v21/blackford3.htm) (though I have not read these reviews); The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 23-24, 38, 55, 108-109, 171-172, 198-203, 207-211, 213-214, 216-217, 272-273, 284-285, 410-417, 426-427); Post-Truth by McIntyre (pp. 6, 116, 123-126, 128-150); Scientist by Rhodes (pp. 152-181); “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman” by Feynman and Leighton (pp. 78-79, 321); Consilience by E. O. Wilson (pp. 43-48, 200-202, 207, 233-235, 329, 341-342); The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 301); Our Minds, Our Selves by Oatley (pp. 210, 214-216, 219-220, 290, 292); the “Postmodernism” chapter of Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay (pp. 21-43); the "Opening Pandora's Box: The Sophists" chapter in The Dream Of Reason by Gottlieb (pp. 114-134 178-179); and the “Sophistry” chapter of The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2020/08/chapter-1-sophistry-sophistructure-0th.html) which further cites The Dream Of Enlightenment by Gottlieb (pp. 95).

XXXVIII. By my memory, Pinker demonstrated that psychologists had done this back in the day in The Blank Slate, but I cannot find it. See "What Makes People Vote Republican?" by Jonathan Haidt (Edge) (2008) (https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-what-makes-people-vote-republican) (though I have not read this whole article). See also The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 284, 291-292, 295, 307, 314-315, 317, 329).

XXXIX. See The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 6, 14-18, 67-69, 107, 142-144, 148, 201-207); Consilience by E. O. Wilson (pp. 158-159, 200-203); The God Delusion by Dawkins (pp. 301-302); The Moral Landscape by Harris (pp. 234-235); "Introduction" by Steven Pinker (Harper Perennial) (2007), "Groups Of People May Differ Genetically In Their Average Talents And Temperaments" by Steven Pinker (Harper Perennial) (2007), and "The Genetic Basis Of Human Behavior" by J. Craig Venter (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2006 / 2007) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11972) all from What Is Your Dangerous Idea? edited by Brockman (pp. xxiii-xxxiii, 13-21); Who We Are And How We Got Here: Ancient DNA And The New Science Of The Human Past by David Reich (Vintage Books) (2018 / 2019) (I believe geneticist David Reich plays both sides of the debate, here, but empirically, his entire field is predicated on the biological reality of human races); The Red Queen: Sex And The Evolution Of Human Nature by Matt Ridley (Harper Perennial) (1993) (pp. 8, 13, 134, 274-275); The Madness Of Crowds by Murray (pp. 61, 154-156, 170-173); "The Issue of Free Speech in Science (Pt. 2) | Jerry Coyne | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" by Dave Rubin and Jerry Coyne (The Rubin Report) (2017) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAH2qOFHggE); The World Until Yesterday by Diamond (pp. 431-451); Cosmos by Sagan (pp. 34); I seem to remember (but cannot source) Tyson reporting that peoples in arctic climes evolved fuller cheeks to better hold in their body heat (I cannot, for example, find this specific claim in the “On Being Round” chapter of Astrophysics For People In A Hurry by Tyson, pp. 134-146, though it does include the basic physics, “... that the one and only shape that has the smallest surface area for an enclosed volume is a perfect sphere”); and In The Hands Of The Great Spirit: The 200,000-Year History Of American Indians by Jake Page (Free Press) (2003 / 2004) (pp. 101-105, 132-133, 169, 222, 224, 236, 262, 276, 280).

XXXX. See The Blank Slate by Pinker (at least pp. 337-371); The Ape That Understood The Universe by Stewart-Williams (at least pp. 62-173); The Selfish Gene by Dawkins (at least pp. 182-215); and The Red Queen by Ridley (at least pp. 173-276).

XXXXI. The following is the introduction from the “Postmodernism” entry on Wikipedia:

        "Postmodernism is… characterized by skepticism toward the "grand narratives" of modernism,

        opposition to epistemic certainty or stability of meaning, and emphasis on ideology as a means of

        maintaining political power. Claims to objective fact are dismissed as naïve realism, with attention

        drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and

        cultural discourses. The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological

        relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism; it rejects the "universal

        validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.

        Initially emerging from a mode of literary criticism, postmodernism developed in the mid-

        twentieth century as a rejection of modernism and has been observed across many disciplines.

        Postmodernism is associated with the disciplines deconstruction and post-structuralism. Various

        authors have criticized postmodernism as promoting obscurantism, as abandoning Enlightenment

        rationalism and scientific rigor, and as adding nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge,"
see “Postmodernism” (Wikipedia) (accessed 12/20/2022) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism) (I actually have read this entire article, some years back) which further cites “Postmodernism” (Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy) (2005 / 2015) (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/postmodernism/), “Postmodernism” by Brian Duignan (Encyclopedia Britannica) (2009 / 2014 / 2017 / 2018 / 2019, 2020, 2022) (https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy), Adult Education And The Postmodern Challenge: Learning Beyond The Limits by Ian Bryant, Rennie Johnston, and Robin Usher (Routledge) (1997 / 2004) (pp. 203), “Postmodernism” (Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt / American Heritage Dictionary) (2008 / 2018) (https://web.archive.org/web/20180615004714/https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=postmodernism), Intimations of Postmodernity by Zygmunt Bauman (Routledge) (1991) (pp. 26), The Lyotard Reader by Jean-François Lyotard, edited by Andrew E. Benjamin (Blackwell) (1989), “Postmodernism” (Oxford Dictionaries) (2013) (https://web.archive.org/web/20130117030012/http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/postmodernism), "The Symbolic Function Of Transmodernity" by Andrea Mura (Language And Psychoanalysis) (2012) (http://www.language-and-psychoanalysis.com/article/view/1604), The Politics Of Postmodernism by Linda Hutcheon (Routledge) (2002), Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, And Postmodern Perspectives by Mary Jo Hatch and Ann L. Cunliffe (Oxford University Press) (2013), Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism And Socialism From Rousseau To Foucault by Stephen R. Hicks (Ockham's Razor Publishing) (2011), Postmodernism For Historians by Callum G. Brown (Routledge) (2005 / 2013), "Abraham Lincoln As Authentic Reproduction: A Critique Of Postmodernism" by Edward M. Bruner (American Anthropologist) (1994) (https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1525/aa.1994.96.2.02a00070 / https://web.archive.org/web/20200227133603/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d1cd/4b9f32b1bf020eb847c93dcc91cf8bd2194e.pdf), Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique by Alex Callinicos (Polity Press) (1989 / 1991), “Introduction” from Recasting Conservatism: Oakeshott, Strauss, And The Response To Postmodernism by Robert Devigne (Yale University Press) (1994 / 1996), and Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers' Abuse Of Science by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (Profile Books) (1999) (though I have not read these works). In short: it is anti-science that now pervades our institutions and public thought, even as it often masquerades as “science”. See “Moderators And Extremists” by Steven Gussman (Instagram) (2020) (https://www.instagram.com/p/CJVVDfKAmpc/) which cites Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay.

XXXXII. See the “Elegance And Complexity” chapter which further cites The God Delusion by Dawkins (pp. 151-152) and The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 16-17, 25-28, 35-36, 48, 77, 195, 213, 237, 246, 266-270, 300-301, 304-306, 374, 377, 387, 445-446) which further cites How To Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For A New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn (Mayfield Publishing Company) (1995), "The Science Of Spirituality" by Charles T. Tart from The Fringes Of Reason: A Whole Earth Catalog edited by Ted Schultz (Harmony Books) (1988) (pp. 67), and Science In The New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders And Debunkers, And American Culture by David J. Hess (University Of Wisconsin Press) (1993) (though I have not read these further-cited works).

XXXXIII. See The Demon Haunted World by Sagan (pp. 35-36, 48, 77, 130, 208, 229-230, 246, 266-270, 300-301, 374); The God Delusion by Dawkins (pp. 69-85, 117-123, 151-161, 319-323); "The Effect Of Art Can't Be Controlled Or Anticipated" by April Gornik (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2006 / 2007) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11579), "The Human Brain Will Never Understand The Universe" by Sabbagh (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10848), "The World May Be Fundamentally Inexplicable" by Lawrence M. Krauss (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2006 / 2007) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11304), "It's OK Not To Know Everything" by Gleiser (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11093), "The End Of Insight" by Strogatz, "Science As Just Another Religion" by Jordan Pollack (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2006 / 2007) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11549), "Everything Is Pointless" by Susan Blackmore (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2006 / 2007) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10470), and "How Can I Trust In The Face Of So Many Unknowables?" by Ernst Pöppel (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2006 / 2007) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11490) all from What Is Your Dangerous Idea? edited by Brockman (pp. 54, 102-107, 128-131, 156-158, 188, 292-293); "The Theory Of Everything" by Geoffrey West (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25572), "Unification" by Gleiser (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25455), "The Laws Of Physics Are Predetermined" by Lawrence M. Krauss (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25375), "Numbering Nature" by Kurt Gray (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25460), "'Science'" by Ian Bogost (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25493), "Things Are Either True Or False" by Alan Alda (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25379), "We'll Never Hit Barriers To Scientific Understanding" by Rees (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25519), "Scientific Morality" by Edward Slingerland (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25339), "Opposites Can't Both Be Right" by Shafir (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25486), "Truer Perceptions Are Fitter Perceptions" by Hoffman (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25450), and "The Illusion Of Scientific Progress" by Saffo (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25511), all from This Idea Must Die edited by Brockman (pp. 1-8, 52-55, 96-99, 132-135, 163-164, 167-169, 365-368, 406-408, 467-468, 542-543); "Mysterianism" by Nicholas G. Carr (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2017 / 2018) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27017) from This Idea Is Brilliant edited by Brockman (pp. 211-213); The Moral Landscape by Harris; Consilience by E. O. Wilson; and The Blank Slate by Pinker.

XXXXIV. See the “Objectivity” chapter.

XXXXV. See The Blank Slate by Pinker; “Moderators And Extremists” by Gussman (https://www.instagram.com/p/CJVVDfKAmpc/) which further cites Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay; Scientist by Rhodes (pp. 152-181); “Postmodernism In Political Science” (Wikipedia) (accessed 1/2/2023) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_in_political_science) (though I have not read this whole article); and the “Foucault And Postmodernism” section of “Political Philosophy” by Richard J. Arneson (Encyclopedia Britannica) (accessed 1/2/2023) (https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-philosophy/Foucault-and-postmodernism) (though I have not read this section in its entirety).

XXXXVI. See for example "Science As Just Another Religion" by Pollack (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11549) from What Is Your Dangerous Idea edited by Brockman (pp. 156-158).

XXXXVII. See for example The Blank Slate by Pinker (at least pp. 26, 108, 158, 172, 244, 255, 284, 296, 309, 427, 529).

XXXXVIII. See again “Postmodernism” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism) which further cites “Postmodernism” (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/postmodernism/), “Postmodernism” by Duignan (https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy), Adult Education And The Postmodern Challenge by Bryant, Johnston, and Usher (pp. 203).

XXXXIX. See for example Consilience by E. O. Wilson (pp. 43-45).

XXXXX. A little over 40% of academic faculty were “far left or liberal” in 1989, which increased to about 60% by 2014, and in the same time-frame, “moderate” students decreased as “liberal” students increased, see for The Coddling Of The American Mind by Lukianoff and Haidt (pp. 110-113, 298) which further cites The American College Teacher: National Norms For 1995-96 HERI Faculty Survey Report by Sax et al. (https://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/FAC/Norms/Monographs/TheAmericanCollegeTeacher1995To1996.pdf) (pp. 1_Physical or 10_PDF, 93_Physical or 102_PDF), Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI Faculty Survey by Hurtado et al. (https://heri.ucla.edu/monographs/HERI-FAC2011-Monograph.pdf) (pp. 2_Physical or 7_PDF, 58_Physical or 63_PDF), The American Freshman: National Norms Fall 2016 by Kevin Eagan et al. (HERI) (2017) (https://heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2016.pdf), and "Political Polarization Among College Freshmen Is At A Record High, As Is The Share Identifying As ‘Far Left’" by Catherine Rampell (The Washington Post) (2017) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2017/05/02/political-polarization-among-college-freshmen-is-at-a-record-high-as-is-the-share-identifying-as-far-left/) (though I have not read these last two sources).

XXXXXI. Saad hits the nail on the head in describing these new “values” as “platitudes”.

XXXXXII. See "Mindscape 90 | David Kaiser On Science, Money, And Power" by Sean Carroll and David Kaiser (Mindscape) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIRwsjRoiXI) (although I could not find what I remembered to be a physicist explicitly comparing British philosophy of physics to American engineering) and The Physics Of Wall Street by Weatherall (pp. 28-34, 197-198).

XXXXXIII. See for example Pale Blue Dot by Sagan (at least pp. 136, 198-202, 224); The Cosmic Web by Gott (at least pp. 57, 105, 134); and "What The World Can Learn From Germany’s Engineering Culture" (Engineering Daily) (2017) (https://www.engineeringdaily.net/what-the-world-can-learn-from-germanys-engineering-culture/#:~:text=Germany's%20prowess%20in%20engineering%20is,of%20machinery%20and%20industrial%20equipment) (though I have not read this entire piece).

XXXXXIV. See The Dream Of Reason by Gottlieb; The Dream Of Enlightenment by Gottlieb; and To Explain The World by Weinberg.

XXXXXV. See the “Methodology” chapter which further cites “In Defense Of Philosophy (Of Science)” by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/05/in-defense-of-philosophy-of-science.html#FN12B) (footnote 12); “Bret And Heather 6th Live Stream: Death And Peer Review - DarkHorse Podcast” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6nOphi0yE) (30:40 – 59:56); “Bret And Heather 54th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Lane Splitting In The Post-Election Era” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZMskLj1N0I) (48:09 – 50:42); “Bret And Heather 79th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: #NotAllMice” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU63lsHA0y0) (47:27 – 51:04); and “Bret And Heather 81st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Permission To Think” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaKtBMk53Y) (15:31 – 38:34).

XXXXXVI. For a small sampling of criticisms of The Nobel Prize, see Our Mathematical Universe by Tegmark (pp. 5, 244); Parallel Worlds by Kaku (pp. 67, 70-72); and “Bret Weinstein On 'The Portal' (w/ Host Eric Weinstein), Ep. #019 - The Prediction And The DISC.” by E. Weinstein and B. Weinstein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLb5hZLw44s); and Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor by Brian Keating (W. W. Norton & Company) (2018) (though I have yet to read this book).

XXXXXVII. See the “peer review” chapter which further cites “The Problem With Peer Review - Eric Weinstein | The Portal Podcast Clips” by E. Weinstein and B. Weinstein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ) (3:48 – 5:58); “Science Is Open Mic Night - With Eric Weinstein - Bret And Heather 22nd DarkHorse Podcast Livestream” by B. Weinstein, E. Weinstein, and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6_8W4E0W1w) (27:10 – 30:46); "Bret And Heather 10th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: SARS-CoV2--Unintelligent Design?" by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKtsx0fZzzQ) (6:40 – 8:24, 53:52 – 57:48); and “E15 - The Evolutionary Lens With Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying | Explorer Modes & The Lab Hypothesis | DarkHorse Podcast” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC0zNzg5MDM1?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiIieTpv837AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQZg) (53:20 – 56:10); “Bret And Heather 5th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Why Covid-19 Kills, And How To Stay Alive.” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPTiP714LZM) (19:18 – 21:33); "Bret And Heather 10th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: SARS-CoV2--Unintelligent Design?" by B. Weinstein with H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKtsx0fZzzQ) (53:52 – 57:48); “Bret And Heather 16th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Meaning, Notions, & Scientific Commotions” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvljruLDhxY) (0:59 – 51:37, 1:03:00 – 1:06:07); “Bret And Heather 87th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: We Must Drive This Virus To Extinction” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsUvr8s0qEk&t) (28:50 – 40:07); “Bret And Heather 6th Live Stream: Death And Peer Review - DarkHorse Podcast” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6nOphi0yE) (30:40 – 59:56, 1:35:30 – 1:39:35); and Viral by Chan and Ridley.

XXXXXVIII. Philosopher Jonathan Rauch calls this “liberal science” but I prefer not to place modifiers onto “science” to avoid confusion about the validity of politicizing science (there are actual thinkers who describe themselves as “feminist glaciologists” for example, which is of course absurd), see Cynical Theories by Pluckrose and Lindsay (pp. 248-251, 255, 321) which further cites Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks On Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch (University Of Chicago Press) (2014) (though I have yet to read this book); the “Real Patriots Ask Questions” chapter in The Demon Haunted World by Sagan and Druyan (pp. 421-434); and Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 396, 486) which further cites "Glaciers, Gender, And Science: A Feminist Glaciology Framework For Global Environmental Change Research" by Mark Carey et al. (Progress In Human Geography) (2016) (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0309132515623368) (though I do not make a habit of reading word salad). I independently coined the term “scientific libertarianism” for this concept.

XXXXXIX. See the “Descriptive Theory And Normative Theory” chapter.