The State has to put scientists to work for the public

Scientists have biases. It’s not just crazy postmodernists who advocate this; it’s people like Karl Popper too – one of the few philosophers of science that scientists take seriously. And the most natural bias for scientists is to want to defend their offspring, that is, their own theories. But instead of demanding that scientists become impartial and treat their peers’ offspring as well as their own, Popper thought it was good to have passionate scientists defending their theories as best they could – as long as competitors could do the same. . Thus, there was a kind of struggle for the life of theories, in a process that emulates that of natural selection. The differential of civilized humanity would be the replacement of the murder of the rival by the argumentative destruction of their ideas.

But it is possible that this Popperian scheme fails without even censorship. It’s enough to have defeat by WO A lot of ink has already been spread about the ideologization of the academic class. Even if we managed to make the criteria for hiring researchers fairer, the problem of self-selection would not be solved; that is, the fact that people of a certain ideological profile decide to take a particular course and not take another type of course. You will hardly see an absolutely common type, with the same ideals as the average Brazilian, saying “I’m going to study social sciences!”. Ordinary people take care to earn money from practical things; he doesn’t go to university to understand big questions of knowledge. Turning to kids, academic research is an ideologue’s lightning rod. It can be Darwinian, it can be communist, it can be liberal, it can be anarcho-capitalist, it can be progressive. Fact is, it will hardly be an ordinary man. And this is a problem, because, whether in the formulation of public policies or in health issues, the fact is that science affects people’s lives. And there is often immense confusion, to which ideologues are so prone, to confuse fact and value. To get the most caricature of this mess, let’s go back to the example of the fact-checking agency that wanted to because it wanted to ban the term “mute servant” as racist. Now, even if the fanciful story that black slaves were planted at the head without a peep were true, that would not mean that anyone who uses the expression today is a racist. Etymology is a science precisely because people use words without knowing their origins. No moral prescription can be extracted from the etymology.

The decision of the questions

If not we can force ordinary men to follow an academic career, what we can do in Brazil is to reduce the autonomy of academics in defining the objects of research. For example: here with my buttons, I believe that the Brazilian State encourages the formation of antisocial homes, with predatory women who create psychopaths. But I can’t prove the state wrong, because I’m not a social scientist, and even if I were, I wouldn’t have a laboratory to conduct research. Meanwhile, Brazilian social scientists who have laboratories are carrying out research aimed at justifying their crazy theories riddled with moral imperatives that no one questions – because after all, it was “science” who said that it has to decriminalize all drugs and stop to arrest a drug dealer to put a stop to the violence in Brazil. Is there a social scientist who thinks that family breakdown, and not phantasmagoria like “structural racism”, explains violence in Brazil? Have. I can quote Eduardo Matos de Alencar, who does not have a laboratory to call his own. And I bet it will never pass a federal contest, because the way to hire teachers is to perpetuate a clique. Many Brazilians think that liberalizing gun ownership discourages violence – and a rare jurist opposed to disarmament, in an article for this Gazeta, used public data to show that ordinary Brazilians are more likely to be right than a bunch of scientists federal social. He was able to do this because the state collects data. But if the social scientist wants more details about the family, he will have to set up his own database, and funding is needed for that.

eggs, a clique of ideologues imposes their values ​​on society with regard to public safety and something as fundamental as family organization.

Another example, daycare centers

Today it is easy to find daycare apologists. One of the two: either it’s because the home has deteriorated a lot, or it’s because the water of ideology hit the stone of common sense so much that it pierced it. With progressivism, “science” decided that women had to fulfill themselves outside the home, at work, bequeathing their offspring to day care centers. I quote the best historian of progressivism in America: “Perhaps one reason women prefer to raise their own children is that they intuitively understand that, all else being equal, day care is actually not a good thing for children. . The Doctor. Benjamin Spock has known this since 1950 when he wrote that day care ‘does no good for babies’. But when he reissued the My Son, My Treasure in the 2020 , he withdrew that advice, bowing to feminist pressures. ‘It was a cowardly act of mine,’ he admits. ‘I just threw it away in subsequent issues. If, as liberals often suggest, the suppression of science for political ends is fascist, then the campaign to hide the dark side of child care certainly counts as fascism. For example, in 1950 Dr. Louise Silverstein wrote in American Psychologist that ‘psychologists must refuse to do any research on the negative consequences of care other than that of mom.’ The traditional conception of motherhood is nothing more than an ‘idealized myth’ conceived by patriarchy to ‘glorify motherhood in an attempt to encourage white middle-class women to have more children’” (Jonah Goldberg,

Left Fascism , P. 100). Moral of the story: to establish a scientific consensus that guides public morality, all it takes is a small group of scientists with very peculiar morals to decide that they will not research this subject. Here with my buttons, I wonder if the drop in IQ in the first world is not a result of the implementation of progressive education, since IQ is not 100 % determined by genetics. But all I have are buttons.

Wouldn’t the state define the questions that science has to investigate? Embrapa’s past proves the need and capacity of the State to produce science. If public science is doing poorly today, this is not a necessary consequence of the public character of science. Nor is it something that cannot exist in the present, since IMPA is an elite Brazilian public institution.

And the marvels of the market?

If the government decides to fund a “science” that says that changing sex is a beauty, we have a question of value, and the government can be punished at the polls. In the current state of affairs, this “science” is a matter of State and is supported regardless of the will of the people expressed at the polls. In Brazil, where science funding is public, our oldest problem is the institutional design that allows science to be dominated by cliques of ideologues. But for some time now, the “science” of the Ford Foundation and the Open Society, which finance NGOs and even public university research, has been spreading among us. In this case, things are even worse, because society can have absolutely no control over such private entities. The Truth is what they establish, and there is no way to fund research that contradicts them. Whoever determines almost alone what the Truth is ends up ruling democracy. It is true that entrepreneurs with an ideology close to that of the common man are free to create Foundations and promote research. But the fact is that they don’t, and that is not their obligation.

Let’s look at the USA, the land of freedoms, a place of great scientific production. The latest news there, according to O Globo in a headline and caption, is that “few transgender children change their minds after 5 years , says study. The research also asserts that the discovery of transsexuality in early childhood is no reason to dismiss it in the name of the child’s immaturity.” Some US states have passed laws to prevent preschool teachers from teaching gender theory to children, as well as sex reassignment therapy to minors. The “science” promptly came forward, with its normative conclusion under its arm: “Researchers followed 317 children in the United States and Canada who went through the transition social [i. e., mudar de nome e roupas] between 3 and years old. On average, participants transitioned between the ages of 5 and 6, and five years later, most of the group still identified with the new gender. In addition, many started taking hormonal drugs in adolescence […]. But, on the other hand, about 2.5% of the group re-identified with the gender they were assigned at birth. As tension mounts in courts and state chambers across the country over appropriate health care for transgender children, there is little hard data on long-term development.”

For anyone familiar with Abigail Shrier’s book of 2020, Irreversible Damage , there are no surprises. Even a criticism leveled at trans medicine is that it does not inform parents that almost 100% of adolescents who take hormone blockers after social transition “choose” be of the opposite sex. Once the parents compromise with the ideology, the child does not come out of it. Another thing she criticized is the lack of information about health risks. Hormone blocker gives osteoporosis; women who are clogged with testosterone see their chances of having heart problems increase, in addition to having a dry and atrophied vagina. According to Shrier, psychiatrists and psychologists who have been dealing with gender dysphoric children and adolescents for decades have suffered a veritable witch hunt promoted by medical and psychological councils. Before, the empirical picture they had was as follows: a small child (usually a boy) saying he is of the opposite sex, until puberty, dysphoria passes and the boy comes out as gay. In puberty, in practice, it was the cure for dysphoria. So if you give hormone blockers in order to stop puberty, you would expect the dysphoria to continue anyway. The therapist’s role was to talk and help the patient to be at peace with his own body. Only a tiny minority, whose dysphoria never went away and who had suicidal thoughts, changed sex. Activism has come to consider this to be transphobia, and the only acceptable treatment is “gender affirmative treatment”, that is, when the child says “I am a girl” and everyone – from the therapist to the family – is obliged to do so. say “it really is”, and start treating it by a new name. Then comes chemical castration (hormone blocker).

In this case, scientists with decades of research were silenced by the councils. Since then, sex reassignment is being considered a basic human right, to be covered by health insurance in the US, the NHS in England and, of course, the SUS in Brazil. In other words, this scientific theory yields a hefty sum for the pharmaceutical industry. It is not too bold a theory to imagine that it has reasons and means to corrupt advice, promote the witch hunt of traditional therapists and impose “gender affirmative therapy”. This is an even less daring theory in a country whose culture is anti-statist and where no one finds it strange for the pharmaceutical industry to fund research in the health area that later guide laws.

Then the “science” orders the child to be castrated, while democracy is left with its hands tied, with the people passing through a bunch of ignorant people, with no one who can defend them in the light of reason and science. It is, after all, the privatization of science itself.

Back to top button