Thread by @nccomfort

So @sapinker is talking trash about me re: my piece in #Nature150 (nature.com/articles/d4158…). <cracks knuckles>
The scrumptious irony is how well Pinker’s tweet makes the central argument in my @Nature article. Here’s the tweet in question.
1/

I write satire from time to time, and I’d be hard-put to parody Pinker’s language. So let’s break down his own words:
“Unlike past anti-scientism rants in lit/cult/pol mags, this [my piece] is in Nature.”
nature.com/articles/d4158…
2/

My @nature piece is not a rant, @sapinker, either in tone or in argument. It’s an analysis and a plea for more good science and less bad science. (You do believe there’s bad science?)
Now THIS, now, is a rant.
3/

The key term in @sapinker’s 1st sent. is “anti-scientism.” He *thinks* he’s saying I’m anti-science (on which, see below). But in calling my piece “anti-scientism” he shows he can’t distinguish between the two.
nature.com/articles/d4158…
4/

It is literally the MAIN POINT of my article to distinguish science from scientism.
Viz.: “[Enlightenment values have] been a guiding theme of modern times. Which in many ways is a splendid thing (lately I’ve seen enough governance without facts for one lifetime).”
5/

“I want to suggest that many of the worst chapters of this history result from scientism: the ideology that science is the only valid way to understand the world and solve social problems”;
6/

“Where science has often expanded and liberated our sense of self, scientism has constrained it”;

“The problem is not science, but scientism.”

Could I be clearer?
nature.com/articles/d4158…
7/

Yes, I am anti-scientism.
Scientism = science + hubris.
Scientism = science + arrogance.
Scientism = science + vanity.
Scientism = science + cruelty.
Scientism = science + ignorance.
Scientism, in other words, is science plus something shitty.
8/

Pinker writes, “Sci eds often outsource commentary on sci & soc to the clique of historians of sci”. But science editors don’t “outsource” commentary, on science & society or anything else. They *commission* articles on various topics from experts in a given field.
9/

.@Nature commissioning me to write this article is exactly like asking a psychologist to comment on psychology, a protein chemist on protein chemistry, a sociologist on sociology. Does @sapinker believe in expertise? Or could a particle physicist do his job better than he?
10/

Begrudging @nature commissioning an article on #histsci from a historian of science can only mean one thing: Pinker thinks that only scientists should write the history of science, because only they have privileged access to the Truth.
That’s scientism, not science.
11/

Then, @sapinker goes on to deride “...historians of sci who historicize everything...”
Seriously???
Damn historians, always historicizing stuff! Lock ‘em up! Build the ivory wall! Make Science Great Again!
nature.com/articles/d4158…

Also, @sapinker says, we historians “hate sci’s claim to objectivity and realism.” Yeah, and we hate America too, right? Jesus, you do sound like Trump.
But I don’t “hate” science’s claim to objectivity; I take issue with it, and boatloads of evidence supports me.
13/

The fact that science both shapes and is shaped by culture, society, economics, politics has been established and reinforced for nearly a century, from L. Fleck in the ‘30s to Kuhn in the ‘60s...to ± everything serious historians have written about science since then.
14/

The social construction of science is as solid as biological evolution. It’s an utter commonplace. Most scientists I know understand this. To be a prof at @Harvard of all places and not know this shows a struthian (Mencken; look it up) ignorance that is, well, embarrassing.
15/

The question isn’t *whether* science and society interact, it’s *how.* We can have disagreements on the how—I show you my evidence, you show me yours, we hash it out—but not the whether.
I’m not arguing with a flat-Earther.
16/

Historians don’t “hate realism,” for chrissakes. We’re more realistic than scientists like Pinker who live in an ideal world of pure reason, failing to acknowledge the messiness of the real world.
17/

Thinking you have uniquely privileged access to reality is scientism, not science. It is to live in a sterile, blinkered world, populated only by the stately march of the anointed intellects toward the 1 & only Truth. That’s like the worst kind of superstitious evangelism.
18/

It’s also chauvinistic, narrow, parochial, and bullying. It’s tyrannical, intolerant of dissent. How unscientific! @sapinker should know how science can be—has been—marshaled in the name of tyrannies large and small, across continents, down the centuries.
19/

Science can be great! It makes many, many positive contributions to knowledge & to society. I love science! It needn't be put in the service of oppression, nor is it always. But it’s indisputable that it has been abused, many times. Honest scientists acknowledge this.
20/

The thesis of my @nature piece, then, once again, is that insidious applications of science are due not to the science itself, but to the ideology that sometimes accompanies it: Scientism. Capeesh?
21/

One last thing: @sapinker’s arrogant and bullying scientism is both a symptom and a cause of the WEIRD male gaze that’s dominated science for centuries. His tweet is Exhibit A in the case for why we need more diversity in science. Hence the last point in my @nature essay.
22/

Male scientists who aren’t arrogant, scientistic pricks (and I know many): There’s no need to say, “Not all scientists.” If this doesn’t describe you, it’s not about you, and I doff my hat to you, sir.
23/

<smoothes dander> Other historian-realists who love science but hate scientism #FF: @elmilam @DorothyERoberts @ayahnerd @STS_News @PublicsHealth @LeapingRobot @thonychristie @wellerstein @samhaselby @monicagreen @Darwinsbulldog @erikadyckhist @KlineWkline @LundyBraun @jaivirdi

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far. I’ll toss this up on Genotopia, if anyone wants it in one piece. genotopia.scienceblog.com
25/25