News Feeds

An AI-powered tool can distinguish dark matter's elusive effects from other cosmic phenomena, which could bring us closer to unlocking the secrets of dark matter.

A team models the atmospheres of distant planets using neural networks.

Physicists have created a one-dimensional gas out of light. This has enabled them to test theoretical predictions about the transition into this exotic state of matter for the first time. The method used in the experiment by the researchers could be used for examining quantum effects.

A new study has unveiled a new class of quantum critical metal, shedding light on the intricate interactions of electrons within quantum materials. The research explores the effects of Kondo coupling and chiral spin liquids within specific lattice structures.

A new study has unveiled a new class of quantum critical metal, shedding light on the intricate interactions of electrons within quantum materials. The research explores the effects of Kondo coupling and chiral spin liquids within specific lattice structures.

New findings from a global team of expert scientists in academia and industry has generated new research quality standards that will help slash costs and reduce the time it takes to develop advanced nanomedicine treatments and make them available for patients.

Scientists have developed a new tool to help identify optimal photovoltaic (PV) materials capable of maximizing crop growth while generating solar power.

Researchers have discovered compelling evidence suggesting that the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, known as Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), is likely the result of a past cosmic merger. The study builds on recent observations from the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which captured the first direct image of Sgr A* in 2022.

Breaching is a common behaviour in a wide range of sharks and rays, and it is thought to have functions related to courtship, birthing and hygiene

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss465_Michael_Shermer_2024_09_06.mp3 Download MP3

During a two-hour interview with Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper made sensational claims about the Holocaust and World War II, with Carlson calling him “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” In this solo episode, Michael Shermer takes a critical look at the pseudohistory and historical revisionism presented by Cooper on Carlson’s show.

Understanding the star formation rate (SFR) in a galaxy is critical to understanding the galaxy itself. Some galaxies are starburst galaxies with extremely high SFRs, some are quenched or quiescent galaxies with very low SFRs, and some are in the middle. Researchers used the JWST to observe a pair of galaxies at Cosmic Noon that are just beginning to merge to see how SFRs vary in different regions of both galaxies.

A rare alignment of massive objects in space allowed astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope to observe a pair of distant, ancient galaxies that are just beginning to interact and merge. The JWST sees the galaxies as they were about seven billion years ago, near the end of the Universe’s Cosmic Noon. The Cosmic Noon was when star formation was at its peak.

One of the galaxies is a blue, face-on galaxy, and the other is a dusty red, edge-on galaxy. The JWST can only see them because of an intervening galaxy cluster named MACS-J0417.5-1154. It’s a gravitational lens that magnifies the light from the galaxy pair and smears the galaxies’ light into an arc.

Astronomers have found many gravitational lenses and regularly use them to observe objects that are otherwise nearly impossible to see. But this lens is different. It’s a hyperbolic umbilic gravitational lens and produces multiple images of the same objects, where each one has a different magnification and brightness.

“We know of only three or four occurrences of similar gravitational lens configurations in the observable universe, which makes this find exciting, as it demonstrates the power of Webb and suggests maybe now we will find more of these,” said astronomer Guillaume Desprez of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Desprez works with the CAnadian NIRISS Unbiased Cluster Survey (CANUCS), the team presenting the Webb results.

Not only does the cluster magnify the distant background galaxies, but it also warps their appearance and produces multiple copies. Together with an unrelated one, the galaxies combine to look like a question mark. They’ve been dubbed the Question Mark Galaxy Pair.

False colour images of the Question Mark Pair and MACS J0417.5?1154 (right-hand panel). The left two panels are zoom-in images of four of the multiply lensed images of the Question Mark Pair taken with HST and JWST. By comparing the JWST and HST images, we see how dusty the red edge-on galaxy is as it is barely visible in the HST/ACS imaging. Image Credit: Estrada-Carpenter et al. 2024.

This isn’t the first time astronomers have observed these galaxies. The Hubble observed it previously. But the Hubble and the JWST see things differently. The JWST can see longer wavelengths of infrared light that pass through cosmic dust, while the Hubble only sees the wavelengths of light that get trapped in the dust. So, the Hubble couldn’t detect the question mark shape, whereas the JWST could.

“This is just cool looking. Amazing images like this are why I got into astronomy when I was young,” said astronomer Marcin Sawicki of Saint Mary’s University, one of the lead researchers on the team.

But the question mark shape is just an interesting visual curiosity. The research is about star formation, and these results highlight the JWST’s ability to identify star formation regions in distant galaxies.

“Knowing when, where, and how star formation occurs within galaxies is crucial to understanding how galaxies have evolved over the history of the universe,” said astronomer Vicente Estrada-Carpenter of Saint Mary’s University. Estrada-Carpenter used both Hubble’s ultraviolet and Webb’s infrared data to show where new stars are forming in the galaxies.

The researchers developed a new method to probe SFRs on different timescales of about ten million years and one hundred million years. The ten-million-year timescale relied on H-alpha emission line maps, and the one-hundred-million-year timescale relied on UV observations. H-alpha is sensitive to ten-million-year timescales because it stems from gas around massive, short-lived stars. UV is sensitive to one-hundred-million-year timescales because it originates from longer-lived stars.

Together, the ratio between the two can spatially resolve star formation burstiness.

They found that SFRs decrease at longer distances from the galactic center. That’s not surprising since star-forming gas tends to accumulate near galactic nuclei. However, they also found that overall, the SFR has increased by a factor of 1.6 over the last ~100 Myr, an indication that the galaxies are beginning to merge.

To better understand the merger aspect, the researchers broke the QMP down into segments: blue galaxy bulge and disc, red bulge and disc, and three types of clumps: bursting, equilibrium, and quenching.

This figure from the study shows how the researchers broke the QMP into segments to better understand it. Image Credit: Estrada-Carpenter et al. 2024.

“Both galaxies in the Question Mark Pair show active star formation in several compact regions, likely a result of gas from the two galaxies colliding,” said Estrada-Carpenter. “However, neither galaxy’s shape appears too disrupted, so we are probably seeing the beginning of their interaction with each other.”

They identified twenty star-forming clumps in the galaxy pair, highlighting the JWST’s ability to spatially resolve star formation in distant galaxies. Of those 20, seven were experiencing bursty star formation, 10 were quenching, and three were in equilibrium. The blue face-on galaxy, especially its disk, is mostly in a quenching phase, which makes sense since the JWST is seeing the galaxy pair as they were near the end of Cosmic Noon.

Galaxies grow massive by merging, and one of the JWST’s science goals is to better understand mergers and how they affect star formation. The QMP could be beginning to merge which only increases its value as an observational target.

“What makes the QMP so interesting is that these galaxies are possibly at the beginning of an interaction (as their morphologies do not seem to be disturbed). An interaction between the galaxy pair could lead to a burst of star formation, and this may be the reason why the blue face-on galaxy contains so many clumpy star-forming regions,” the authors write in their paper.

These results are also giving us a look at what our own galaxy was like during Cosmic Noon.

“These galaxies, seen billions of years ago when star formation was at its peak, are similar to the mass that the Milky Way galaxy would have been at that time. Webb is allowing us to study what the teenage years of our own galaxy would have been like,” said Sawicki.

The post JWST Reveals Star Formation at Cosmic Noon appeared first on Universe Today.

Information theory tells us the limits of what can and cannot be communicated – and without it, the digital revolution could never have happened

If you read here, you’ll know that I spend more of my time calling out the excesses of the Left than of the Right. I’ve explained why, and it’s not because I’m a right-winger or am unaware of their program and, especially, of their deranged candidate for President.

But this time I’ll let Bari Weiss answer for me, in an extract below from a recent piece she wrote for The Free Press.  I’m not interested much in the fracas about Tucker Carlson, for too much else is happening in the world, but below is an extract from Weiss’s piece that mirrors my own sentiments. You can read the whole piece, if you wish, by clicking on the headline.

An excerpt:

If there is a criticism I’ve gotten over the past several years it’s that I pay too much attention—and apply too much scrutiny—to the excesses of the illiberal left at the expense of the illiberal right. Wasn’t I ignoring the elephant and allowing myself to get distracted by the gnat?

My response to that is twofold.

The first is that there is no shortage of writers, reporters, and outlets focusing on the dangers of the far right. I saw the far left as conspicuously overlooked by people who otherwise take a great interest in political extremism. And I understand why they were averting their gaze: The social cost of noticing this subject is very high. Given that the job description of a journalist is to observe the world, uncover things in the public interest, and then tell the plain truth about it, choosing topics where others fall silent seems wise to me. It still does.

The second is that I have been concerned for years now that the illiberal ideology that has become increasingly mainstream on the political left—one that makes war on our common history, our common identity as Americans, and fundamentally, on the goodness of the American project—would inspire the mirror ideology on the right.

And that is exactly where we find ourselves, with an illiberal left that defaces Churchill statues—and an illiberal right that defaces Churchill’s legacy. With a left that insists 1619 was the year of the true founding of America—and a right that suggests the Greatest Generation was something closer to genociders. With a left that sympathizes with modern-day Nazis in the form of Hamas—and a right that sympathizes with the original ones.

On a recent expedition, researchers braved summer storms in northern Greenland to learn the secrets of the ancient peoples who lived there 4500 years ago

Information on faces recognised, voice commands and internet searches can be extracted from an Amazon Echo smart assistant without help from the user or manufacturer

The other day I put up a post about an indigenous “science initiative” in New Zealand with a wonky aim: to cure the country’s iconic kauri trees of a fungal blight by, yes, playing whale songs to sick trees and rubbing them with whale oil and pulverized whale bones. This endeavor, I asserted, had no empirical basis to justify its funding—by New Zealand taxpayers, of course.

Indeed, the project came from a Māori legend that whales once roamed the land and were BFFs with kauri trees, but then got separated. The project was based on the supposition that bringing tree and whale back together again could not only revive their erstwhile friendship but also save the sick trees.  (I can guarantee you here that they’re not talking about evolution of the trees and whales from a common ancestor, nor about terrestrial ancestors of whales.)

A quote from the initiative:

Māori whakapapa  [genealogy] describes how the kauri and tohorā (sperm whale) are brothers, but they were separated when the tohorā chose the ocean over the forest. In this research area we looked at how this connection could possibly help save the kauri from kauri dieback disease.

The team was led by Matua Tohe Ashby and investigated rongoā (traditional medicine) solutions for kauri dieback. This involved tohorā, karakia and mōteatea, and tied into the second Oranga research project: Te reo o te waonui a Tāne. The team also traind kauri communities in rongoā solutions to help save their rākau (trees).

Here’s the video linked to Ashby’s name:

I called this project “mishegass”, a transliteration of the Yiddish word for “silliness” or “craziness”, and also used the English “nonsense”.  How could I not mock such an endeavor, for doesn’t basing a funded project on a ludicrous myth fully deserve mockery? That is, unless you are a taxpaying New Zealander, in which case it should make you mad.

But my criticism also irritated a Māori journalist, who wrote me an email yesterday:

Hello Jerry

I am a journalist in New Zealand for the Southern Cross News I have recently read your article on Mātauranga Māori and would like to ask you a few questions

Have you ever been to New Zealand ?

Have you experienced Mātauranga Māori or was your research online?

Are you aware of the Pre-Polynesian Civilisation conspiracy theory and have you commented on this topic?

Do you have a bias towards Western Science and dismiss indigenous science?

Was colonisation an overwhelmingly positive event for Māori ?

Do you believe non-Māori should control the destiny of Mātauranga Māori

Joe Trinder | Editor

I hadn’t heard of the Southern Cross News (SCN), but it appears to be.a Māori-centric New Zealand website, and Joe Trinder is clearly of Māori ancestry, describing himself on “X” as “Woke Elite Maori of the highest order.”

As you can see, Trinder’s questions are loaded ones, and though I was tempted to respond, I saw no point, for there was already an article in the SCN, written by one Dr. Rawiri Waretini-Karena, criticizing my own critique and defending indigenous ways of knowing and the usefulness of whale songs, bones, and oil at curing kauri blight.  Waretini-Karena himself is described at IGI Global as

. . . a current Post Doc Research Fellow Recipient lecturer and researcher at Te Whare Waananga o Awanuiaarangi Indigenous University in Whakatane. His qualifications include a PhD Indigenous Philosophy, 2014 Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, a Master of Arts Commercial Music 2010 WINTEC, and a Bachelor of Applied Social Science- Maaori Counselling 2004 WINTEC. He has spent the last 20 years in the education field.

He also has a TedX talk which he notes not only that he was a convicted murderer, but that (according to the caption), he

. . . .  graduated in 2014 with a PhD Doctorate of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies and was the recipient of three prestigious doctoral scholarship awards for his research into transforming Māori experiences of historical intergenerational trauma.

Waretini-Karena doesn’t appear to have any formal scientific training.  I won’t dismiss his critique because of that, but it does give us some understanding of his failure to understand modern science and how it differs from indigenous “ways of knowing”.

I got the link to Waretini-Karena’s article in SC from a Kiwi colleague, but the bizarre thing is that the article kept appearing and disappearing on the SC website for reasons unknown. (It wasn’t my browser, for the vanishing post also vanished in New Zealand.) The second time this happened, my colleague made a pdf of the article so it couldn’t be permanently removed. Below a screenshot of the article, and if it appears again I’ll put up a working link to the piece.

I checked this morning and the link is still dead and the critique is gone.  But I’ve put the entire article below from the pdf saved by a colleague.

Here’s the short article; the text is indented and my comments are flush left. There was no link to my original piece nor even my name given as the author.  From Waretini-Karina

Introduction:

The recent article critiquing the “Whale Song” project, a government-funded initiative aimed at revitalizing kauri trees using Māori knowledge, exemplifies a persistent problem in Western engagement with Mātauranga Māori: a fundamental misunderstanding of its core principles and its historical context.

The article is titled:

The author’s dismissal of the project as “ludicrous” and “nonsense” is not only disrespectful but also indicative of a narrow, reductionist view of knowledge. This dismissal stems from a Western perspective that prioritizes empirical evidence and scientific methodology as the sole measures of validity, failing to acknowledge the inherent limitations of such approaches in understanding and appreciating the complexities of Māori knowledge.

Mātauranga Māori  [MM] is not simply a collection of “legends and anecdotes,” as the author suggests. It is a dynamic, evolving system of knowledge, practices, and beliefs that have been developed and refined over generations through observation, experimentation, and deep connection to the natural world. It operates on a holistic and interconnected understanding of the universe, where all things are intrinsically linked and interdependent.

This is of course a distortion of what I’ve written. I’ve noted that there is some empirical trial-and-error knowledge in MM (but also a passel of legend, myth, religion, and instruction about how to live), though I’m not aware of any explicit experimentation, at least not how modern science conceives of an “experiment”. The defense continues:

The article’s assertion that “there is no underlying ‘wisdom’ or scientific data suggesting that sounds played to ailing trees could cure them” reveals a lack of understanding of the potential benefits of sound therapy, a field of study that has shown promising results in various areas, including plant growth and stress reduction.

Yes, sound waves have been shown to affect plant growth in some studies, but this conclusion is controversial (see here).

I don’t doubt that some stressed humans can be soothed by music, but the issue at hand is not that: it’s whether reuniting infected kauri trees with the oil, bones, and songs of their ancient buddies can cure the blight. Beyond the author’s anecdotal claim, I argue that it’s not worth spending the money investigating this theory, which, in the end, is based on a palpably false legend: that whales once roamed the earth (as whales, not their ancestors), became friends with kauri trees, and then they lost touch.  This experiment is designed fix the legend by playing whale songs to the trees and dousing them with whale oil and whale bones. Experimenting based on an unsubstantiated legend, and using taxpayer money to do so, is not something that seems propitious. In contrast to the author’s claim, this research is indeed based on a legend, and one that we know to be false.

Furthermore, the article’s focus on “double-blind control tests” as the sole measure of validity ignores the inherent limitations of Western scientific methodology in understanding and appreciating the complexities of Māori knowledge. Mātauranga Māori operates on a different epistemology, one that values lived experience, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and the interconnectedness of all things.

Here the author is blowing smoke.  How do you establish that a treatment of any sort works unless you compare the effects of the treatment with a group not given it, and blinding the experimenters as far as possible (i.e., those who measure the effects wouldn’t know if the trees had had whale songs played to them or whether they were doused with whale oil and bones).

The “different epistemology” of MM appears to be based not on rigorous experimentation, but on wish-thinking.  Don’t forget, too, that modern science is also based on “intergenerational knowledge transmission”. As for the “interconnectedness of all things,” I don’t see how that claim is of value in this study.  My boss Dick Lewontin once countered an “interconnectedness” claim by saying something like “Yes, but this doesn’t mean that the emissions of a supernova has any effect on my gardening.” The defense continues:

The article’s dismissal of the project as “science-dissing” also reveals a lack of understanding of the historical context of Māori knowledge. The colonization of Aotearoa (New Zealand) has led to the suppression and marginalization of Māori knowledge systems. The “Whale Song” project represents a significant step towards reclaiming and revitalizing this knowledge, and should be viewed not as a rejection of science, but as acomplementary approach to addressing the challenges facing our environment.

The article’s reliance on anecdotal evidence to support its claims, such as the anonymous scientist’s “concerns,” further undermines its credibility. It is essential to approach discussions about Māori knowledge with respect, humility, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue rather than resorting to prejudiced and discriminatory language.

The “Whale Song” project, while perhaps unconventional, represents a valuable opportunity to explore the potential of Māori knowledge in addressing environmental challenges. It is crucial to approach such initiatives with an open mind and a genuine desire to learn from different ways of knowing.

Science is based on dispute, attempts to falsify, and constant criticism. Here the author argues that indigenous knowledge should be immune to that type of criticism, as it’s is seen as “disrespectful.” (The implication is that it’s also bigoted.)  The very motivation for this project—a claim that walking whales were friends with kauri trees—is so ludicrous that the project should be dismissed unless there are preliminary modern scientific tests showing there’s even a hope that it would work.  Modern science is indeed at work on kauri blight, and has even identified the organism causing it. To me, that gives more hope of a cure than does this project.

Conclusion:

This article serves as a reminder that genuine engagement with Mātauranga Māori requires a willingness to move beyond Western-centric perspectives and embrace the richness and complexity of indigenous knowledge systems. Only through respectful dialogue and a commitment to understanding can we truly appreciate the value

Once again, the author tries to render indigenous science immune from criticism because it’s “rich and complex”.  That alone is not sufficient to sacralize indigenous knowledge. If we’re to move forward with real knowledge about the world, projects like this one should be subject to exactly the same kind of criticism as is modern science.

Once again I quote former pastor Mike Aus. Bolding is mine.

When I was working as a pastor I would often gloss over the clash between the scientific world view and the perspective of religion. I would say that the insights of science were no threat to faith because science and religion are “different ways of knowing” and are not in conflict because they are trying to answer different questions. Science focuses on “how” the world came to be, and religion addresses the question of “why” we are here. I was dead wrong. There are not different ways of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two options in this world.

If you want to know if whale songs and whale oil and bone cure kauri blight in nature, there is no option save the experimental tools of modern science.

I’ve wasted a lot of time on this post, for there are many initiatives like it that need criticism, and time is limited. But then again, the taxpayers of New Zealand need to know that they’re wasting their money on projects like this one.

And, I wonder, why did the site take down the post—twice? Was it too embarrassing to publish? Your guess is as good as mine.

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is being demanding, as cats are:

Hili: We have to have a serious talk.
A: What about?
Hili: About your duties.

Hili: Musimy poważnie porozmawiać.
Ja: O czym?
Hili: O twoich obowiązkach.

I suppose it's my turn to be called a fraudster, liar, perjurer, felon, grifter, stooge, imbecile, and maybe even murderer. What I won't get is a reasonable explanation as to why supposedly releasing a deadly virus was mass murder, but intentionally spreading it was a forgivable "policy position".

The post Biosafety Now: Releasing The Virus Was Mass Murder. Intentionally Spreading It Was Forgivable. first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

We are three college professors who wish to call attention to a growing problem, namely the erosion of the foundational values of a college education: free inquiry and free speech, rationality and empiricism, civil discussion and debate, and openness to new ideas.

The Rise of Critical Theories

Critical theory is a school of thought that has its roots in Marxist theories of human nature and society. It originally developed in Germany in the 1920s among a group of scholars at the Institute for Social Research. They were attempting to salvage some of the failed ideas of Marxism by extending theory to embrace non-economic forms of inequality and oppression.

Critical theorists believe that mainstream knowledge is used to promote the interests of the powerful. Unlike traditional social science, which aims to objectively describe human nature and society by carrying out scientific research, critical theory promotes ideological narratives as self-evidently true. Based on their theories about human nature and social justice, critical theorists promote political activism (or “praxis”), and at times even violent revolution, to achieve their goals.

The predecessor to critical theory, Marxism, simplistically divided people into groups labeled as oppressors or oppressed. Marxism’s original group division was economic—the groups were the oppressive Bourgeois (those who controlled the means of production) and the oppressed Proletariat (the workers). It tried to explain the systemic causes of these group divisions (capitalism) and it developed a set of proposed solutions, including violent revolution, that it presumed would lead to a utopian communist society. These steps, which we will call “Marxist methodology, subsequently became part of critical theories that then focused on additional ways of dividing people into categories of oppressors and oppressed. The Marxist methodology follows the steps shown in Table 1.

Click table to enlarge

1. Divide people into two (or more) groups.
2. Label one group as the oppressed (“the good”), the other as the oppressors (“the bad”).
3. Develop a theory that purports to explain the systemic causes of this division. The theory is often conspiratorial in nature—oppressors are seen as scheming to keep the oppressed in their place.
4. Identify and implement solutions. Encourage group solidarity among the oppressed group, promote an “us-versus-them” mentality, groupthink, and adherence to the party line, invent insulting labels to brand members of the out-group, and engage in activism and/or revolution that will purportedly end those social injustices.

Many social movements based on critical theories have used this Marxist methodology, as noted in Table 1.

All these ideological movements have restricted free speech, encouraged an “us” versus “them” political tribalism, employed personal ad hominem attacks against opponents, and promoted cancellation campaigns. While it is important to respect diversity and historical injustices, we should keep in mind that truly liberal worldviews emphasize our common humanity—which is far less divisive.

What Does “Social Justice” Mean?

The new higher education mantra, “social justice” sounds good, but it in fact can refer to either of two often mutually exclusive philosophies: liberal social justice or critical social justice. Though few acknowledge it, increasingly social justice is sold as the former, but practiced as the latter. Consider how they compare in the Table 2.

Click table to enlarge

As is evident, liberal social justice and critical social justice employ two very different methods in determining what constitutes social justice.

Language Revisionism

Critical social justice activists often use the “Motte and Bailey strategy” (see Table 3) to make extreme proposals appear moderate. In this gambit a highly defensible “Motte” position is promoted, while successively working toward a more radical “Bailey” position. This gambit is used often in postmodernist discourses. For example, by asserting that morality is socially constructed, the Motte is that our beliefs are socially influenced, and the Bailey is that there is no such thing as morality or truth. Another example:

• A (non-controversial) Motte position: “We want social justice.” This statement is difficult to argue against, as just about everyone believes in fairness (though they may differ in how they define the term or how to achieve it).
• A (controversial) Bailey position: “We need to re-define social justice as critical social justice and we need to make fundamental (sometimes radical) changes to our society including ending the rule of law, free speech, property rights, and merit systems.” This statement is much more controversial than the Motte, as it suggests that the current social order is inherently unjust and so needs to be overthrown.

Here are more examples of the Motte and Bailey strategies with respect to the re-definition of some commonly used words.

Click table to enlarge

What is social justice when re-interpreted from a critical social justice lens?1

Again, the term “social justice” in common language refers to the liberal social justice conceptions of individual rights and responsibilities, equal opportunity, blind justice, equality before the law, etc., as noted above. These ideas evolved from historic common law, the Enlightenment (particularly the Scottish Enlightenment), and U.S. constitutionalism.

However, over recent decades the term social justice has come to be redefined in terms of critical, not liberal, social justice. This re-definition was accomplished surreptitiously through the Motte and Bailey gambit, and it also allowed the more radical philosophy of critical theory itself to be covertly introduced into college campuses while flying under the academic radar. By analogy, the term “social justice” has been used as a terminological Trojan horse to insert critical social justice and critical theory into the academy under the guise of liberal social justice.

Restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Open Inquiry

This sort of critical social justice activism and indoctrination (as opposed to exposing students to these perspectives in the context of discussing and debating the respective strengths and weaknesses of a range of perspectives) is the opposite of free expression and open inquiry, and thus it is the antithesis of the foundational values of traditional higher education.

Often mere attempts to question how, why, or whether X-injustice is happening leads to accusations that the questioner must be a bigoted “X-ist” or “X-phobe.” Questioning is often dismissed by critical theorists as defensive rhetoric employed to defend one’s privilege and power. The questioner needs thus be silenced, ostracized, and/or canceled. As documented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), this has in fact happened thousands of times.

Some Examples of Restriction of Speech and Open Inquiry

A series of large-scale empirical studies beginning in the year 2000 found that both students and professors report fearing to express or explore political and ideological viewpoints that are critical of critical theory.2 Further, campuses have little ideological diversity among faculty and administrators, with typically a 12:1 ratio of liberal/progressive to conservative/libertarian, and many departments and some whole fields lacking any conservative or libertarian faculty members. Studies document that many professors freely admit to discriminating against colleagues and students who support liberal, rather than critical, conceptions of social justice. Here are some recent representative examples:

• Bret Weinstein, a former professor of biology at Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, was deplatformed and forced to resign after he was accused of racism and white privilege for refusing to participate in a “Day of Absence,” which asked white faculty to stay off campus for the day to celebrate people of color.
• Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, was suspended after she showed her class a video of a debate about gender pronouns. She was accused of violating the university’s policy on discrimination and harassment.
• Dorian Abbot, an associate professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, was disinvited from giving a prestigious lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) after he wrote an opinion piece criticizing diversity initiatives and instead supporting meritbased college admissions, hiring, and promotions.
• Nicholas Christakis, a professor of sociology at Yale University, was placed on administrative leave after he sent an email to students urging them to be civil to those with whom they disagree.
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch politician and women’s rights activist who herself suffered female genital mutilation as a child in a traditional Islamic society, was disinvited from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, after students protested her views on Islam.

Critical Pedagogy: Political Activism in the Classroom

Critical pedagogy is an ideological approach to teaching that attempts to impose political views and activism in the classroom that are consistent with critical theory. It was founded by the Brazilian philosopher and educator Paulo Freire, who promoted it through his 1968 book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It pressures students to adopt a specific political ideology and rejects dissenting views. Doing so takes time away from developing core academic skills, including critical thinking skills.

At its worst, critical pedagogy can produce an environment where some professors and administrators try to tell students not how to think, but what to think. Professors should not be using the lectern as an activist bully pulpit to push their personal ideological or political beliefs. Since professors are in positions of power relative to their students, such activism in the classroom is unethical and constitutes professional misconduct. Students should not be expected to conform to ideologies or dogmas in the classroom.

It is unfortunate that students will very likely be subject to activism on the part of some of their professors and even some fellow students. If they disagree with them, they may at times feel that they should keep their thoughts to themselves. But do not. Speak up!

Spotting Education v. Indoctrination

To be clear, although we do not subscribe to critical theory because of the difficulties with it that we (and many others) have identified, we do not object to a professor teaching or discussing critical theory and critical social justice and presenting his or her opinions about matters based on those perspectives. College is all about exposing students to a range of ideas and opinions. However, professors should not attempt to indoctrinate their students with critical theory or anything else, and they should expose students to a range of perspectives on various issues. Below are a few pointers to help students to identify whether a course or a professor is promoting critical theory through indoctrination rather than education.

Courses that educate tend to have:

• A Balance of Perspectives: Look for courses that present multiple viewpoints and encourage open discussion. A balanced education should expose students to various ideas, even those that challenge the prevailing consensus.
• Freedom of Thought: If a course or professor discourages questioning or presents information as absolute truth without room for debate, it might be indoctrination. In contrast to a fundamentalist religion, education encourages students to question, analyze, and form their own conclusions.
• An Evidence-Based Approach: Knowledge should be grounded in research, evidence, and historical context. If a course lacks substantial evidence to support its claims or relies primarily on emotional appeals, it is less education than indoctrination.
• Engagement with Opposing Views: A healthy educational environment should encourage engaging with opposing viewpoints. If a course dismisses or demonizes dissenting perspectives, it could be leaning towards indoctrination.

Whereas courses that indoctrinate tend to:

Discourage Disagreement: The professor discourages students from challenging their favored concepts and ideals.

Rely on Emotional Appeals and Ad Hominem Attacks: The professor uses emotional appeals and personal attacks to silence dissent.

Campus activism can be covert rather than overt, with the professor communicating to students what is acceptable or not based on their reactions to student comments, the topics they select to discuss and to omit, their grading practices and feedback, how they interact with and treat students having different opinions, or even their body language when talking about various topics.

A 2007 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) subcommittee report stated such activist professors present their favored worldview “dogmatically, without allowing students to challenge their validity or advance alternative understandings” and such instructors “insist that students accept as truth propositions that are in fact professionally contestable.” Given that professors are in a position of power over their students, this type of behavior is especially inappropriate. And, as far back as 1915, the AAUP advised that professors “should, in dealing with [controversial] subjects, set forth justly, without suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions” on the issue. This 1915 advisory is still in effect. Indeed, any failure to do so may constitute an ethical breach. Professors should teach students about different sides of an issue and do so fairly, rather than pretending there is just one permitted viewpoint, as in a Marxist or authoritarian organization or system.

What Should Be Done?

First, if students encounter a professor that they believe is using the classroom to engage in ideological or political activism, students should speak up. That may be less risky than students think. Remember, education should empower students to engage in critical thinking and constructive dialogue. If students encounter concerning situations, approach professors for respectful discussions. If needed, seek guidance from department chairs or administrators who value open inquiry. There usually are some.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.2
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

Often, students cannot rely on their institution’s hierarchy alone—indeed they may be part of the problem. Moreover, there is safety in numbers. Enlist parents and outside organizations to lobby college or university to ensure that it is promoting intellectual diversity, open inquiry, and free thought. (A very simple change is to ask that course evaluations include questions on whether students felt free to voice their opinions in class, whether the professor dealt fairly with students having divergent views, and whether different sides of controversial issues were presented or discussed.)

Today, there are numerous organizations to help students. Currently, the most prominent bipartisan protectors and promoters of free thought are the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and Speech First. The important thing to remember is that you are not alone. Aside from those organizations, it is certain that many others at their institution will be rooting for students, even if they feel that they can only do so privately.

Second, know that when confronted with transparency (sometimes supplemented with attorneys), bullies tend to back down.

Third, know that the trials students are facing now can make them stronger, and further, are nothing like those faced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jackie Robinson, James Meredith, and thousands of others who faced suppression for their beliefs or their identity. The worst fate awaiting students would be having to transfer from a school which does not value free thought to one that does. Students have choices. Make them wisely.

About the Author

Michael Mills is an evolutionary psychologist at Loyola Marymount University (LMU). He earned his B.A. from UC Santa Cruz and his Ph.D. from UC Santa Barbara. He has served as Chair, and as the Director of the Graduate Program, at the LMU Psychology Department. He serves on the editorial boards of several academic journals and on the executive board of the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences (SOIBS).

Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, where he studies bureaucratic reform and edits the Journal of School Choice. He has served on the Fayetteville School Board (2015-20) and currently serves on the executive board of the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences (SOIBS). With others, he has produced about 100 refereed publications and 17 scholarly books so boring his own mother refused to read them, including President Obama and Education Reform (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2012), Educating Believers: Religion and School Choice (Routledge, 2021), and The Free Inquiry Papers (AEI, 2024). He can be reached at rmaranto@uark.edu.

Richard E. Redding is the Ronald D. Rotunda Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and Associate Dean, and Professor of Psychology and Education at Chapman University. He has written extensively on the importance of viewpoint and sociopolitical diversity in teaching, research, and professional practice. Notable publications include Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (Springer, 2023); Sociopolitical Values at the Deep Culture in Culturally-Competent Psychotherapy (Clinical Psychological Science, 2023); and, Sociopolitical Diversity in Psychology: The Case for Pluralism (American Psychologist, 2001). He is the founding President of the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences (soibs.com).

Organizations

• The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). In particular, see its College Free Speech Rankings: https://bit.ly/3T0kbyn
• Campus Reform: campusreform.org
• Heterodox Academy: heterodoxacademy.org
• Academic Freedom Alliance: academicfreedom.org
• Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences (SOIBS): soibs.com

Additional Resources

• Infographic: Critical Theory and Classic Liberalism: https://bit.ly/3uMwOVP
• “Universities must choose between truth or social justice, not both” by Jonathan Haidt https://bit.ly/3Il7ucw
• “The Two Fiduciary Duties of Professors” by Jonathan Haidt https://bit.ly/49FJCwq

References

1. This section relies heavily on three works. For the best conceptual analyses of various branches of critical theory, see Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity. (Pitchstone Publishing). For a sound journalistic account about how critical theory spread across institutions, see Christopher F. Rufo, America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything (Broadside Books). Though Rufo has become a political activist, we can attest that his journalistic work is sound, as least as regards those areas with which we are familiar. Finally, the best single work about how critical theory and other moral panics spread, particularly in higher education, remains Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind (Penguin). Also see Kenny Xu’s School of Woke: How Critical Race Theory Infiltrated American Schools and Why We Must Reclaim Them. (Center Street) and Isaac Gottesman’s The Critical Turn in Education (Routledge)
2. Coddling of the American Mind; Eric Kaufmann, https://cspicenter.org/reports/academicfreedom/. Analyzing largescale surveys, political scientist Eric Kaufmann found over a third of conservative professors and doctoral students facing threats of discipline for their views. So have one in ten liberals, often censored by those farther left. Also see Richard E. Redding, “Psychologists’ Politics,” in Craig Frisby, Richard Redding, William O’Donohue, and Scott Lilienfeld, Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (Springer), comprehensively reviewing all historical and current studies on the political views of professors and university administrators.

The largest pterosaurs, ancient reptiles that were the first vertebrates to master flight, may have mostly soared while smaller ones flapped their wings, a pattern that persists in today's birds