This is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs across a number of topics, Peter.
It is well thought out and well explained.
The ensuing US administration promises an opening of the floodgates on long-hidden information and data.
Archives will be opened and files un-redacted.
Things will be revealed that will require serious introspection and a thorough review about the state of "expertise" emerging from universities, news media and bureaucracies.
It is bound to be a time of shocking revelations.
My hope is that we consider the new (likely scandalous) revelations seriously, but with a touch of grace to get to the other side of this continual division into distinct political camps.
Without a doubt, decisions will have to be made as to which "experts" are deserving of legal punishment and which should be forgiven as unwitting accomplices.
[Just the detransitioner cases, alone, will be a huge mess to sort out.]
It will require great wisdom, unflinching courage and generosity of spirit from the leadership class.
> "Biologist Carol Hooven left her position at Harvard when students objected to her claiming that sex is biological and binary."
Part of the problem is that many if not most people don't realize that the sexes are simply a matter of definition. There is NO intrinsic meaning to either "male" or "female" -- we SAY, we "socially construct", what it takes to qualify as members of those categories. Developmental biologist Emma Hilton clearly and unambiguously emphasized the point, although only for "female" but the same principle applies equally to "male":
Hilton: "The definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can produce large gametes. This not a matter of *observation*, this is a matter of *definition*."
Biologists have CHOSEN those definitions because they neatly encapsulate an essential trait that is common and ubiquitous across literally millions of sexually reproducing species -- the production of either large gametes (ova) or small gametes (sperm). That is what, by definition, makes the sexes into a binary. For examples, see these definitions in the Glossary of an article published by the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes; Jussi Lehtonen, Geoff A. Parker; Oxford Academic; Molecular Human Reproduction, Volume 20, Issue 12, December 2014
Y'all may wish to take a gander at what a paper by a philosopher of biology (retired), Paul Griffiths, has to say on "What are biological sexes?":
And my own kick at the kitty which attempts to illustrate the reasons why the "mechanisms" associated with the production of large and small gametes are taken to be the defining traits for the sexes:
"Rerum cognoscere causas; Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints":
Humans cannot feel exponential systems, cannot predict them intuitively, cannot even track exponential movement with eyes. Phenomena which work on that basis are inscrutable, strange, alien.
I doubt if simple diminishing returns has been even approached. Consider gene editing, AI, materials science, control over states of consciousness.
I think we are at peak internetworking perhaps, but compute power keeps growing. We,ve barely touched solar.
Thanks for writing this, this is a superb article. As an experienced professional 'applied scientist' this resonates with me. One issue that is a perennial problem as well, is that most lay people cant differentiate between scientists and engineers, they all get kind of lumped together as 'scientists' in the public consciousness. This is a problem, because scientists study nature and engineers are professional problem solvers that use the tools scientists discover. When the wrong profession is assigned the wrong task, science and/or engineering for the public good is compromised.
This is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs across a number of topics, Peter.
It is well thought out and well explained.
The ensuing US administration promises an opening of the floodgates on long-hidden information and data.
Archives will be opened and files un-redacted.
Things will be revealed that will require serious introspection and a thorough review about the state of "expertise" emerging from universities, news media and bureaucracies.
It is bound to be a time of shocking revelations.
My hope is that we consider the new (likely scandalous) revelations seriously, but with a touch of grace to get to the other side of this continual division into distinct political camps.
Without a doubt, decisions will have to be made as to which "experts" are deserving of legal punishment and which should be forgiven as unwitting accomplices.
[Just the detransitioner cases, alone, will be a huge mess to sort out.]
It will require great wisdom, unflinching courage and generosity of spirit from the leadership class.
They will need our support.
> "Biologist Carol Hooven left her position at Harvard when students objected to her claiming that sex is biological and binary."
Part of the problem is that many if not most people don't realize that the sexes are simply a matter of definition. There is NO intrinsic meaning to either "male" or "female" -- we SAY, we "socially construct", what it takes to qualify as members of those categories. Developmental biologist Emma Hilton clearly and unambiguously emphasized the point, although only for "female" but the same principle applies equally to "male":
Hilton: "The definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can produce large gametes. This not a matter of *observation*, this is a matter of *definition*."
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1488523777042432008
Biologists have CHOSEN those definitions because they neatly encapsulate an essential trait that is common and ubiquitous across literally millions of sexually reproducing species -- the production of either large gametes (ova) or small gametes (sperm). That is what, by definition, makes the sexes into a binary. For examples, see these definitions in the Glossary of an article published by the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes; Jussi Lehtonen, Geoff A. Parker; Oxford Academic; Molecular Human Reproduction, Volume 20, Issue 12, December 2014
Y'all may wish to take a gander at what a paper by a philosopher of biology (retired), Paul Griffiths, has to say on "What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
And my own kick at the kitty which attempts to illustrate the reasons why the "mechanisms" associated with the production of large and small gametes are taken to be the defining traits for the sexes:
"Rerum cognoscere causas; Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
Humans cannot feel exponential systems, cannot predict them intuitively, cannot even track exponential movement with eyes. Phenomena which work on that basis are inscrutable, strange, alien.
I doubt if simple diminishing returns has been even approached. Consider gene editing, AI, materials science, control over states of consciousness.
I think we are at peak internetworking perhaps, but compute power keeps growing. We,ve barely touched solar.
There’s a lot more room to go
Thanks for writing this, this is a superb article. As an experienced professional 'applied scientist' this resonates with me. One issue that is a perennial problem as well, is that most lay people cant differentiate between scientists and engineers, they all get kind of lumped together as 'scientists' in the public consciousness. This is a problem, because scientists study nature and engineers are professional problem solvers that use the tools scientists discover. When the wrong profession is assigned the wrong task, science and/or engineering for the public good is compromised.