Nonsense Studies: Between Agenda and Science (Column 60)

With God’s help

Today I received on WhatsApp[1] a screenshot of an announcement for an interdisciplinary conference for research students hosted by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tel Aviv University. The announcement prompted several thoughts that I wanted to share with you. But I will begin with a short introduction.

A short introduction to the methodology and ethics of scientific research

In the philosophy of science it is customary to distinguish between the context of discovery and the context of justification. If a scientist arrived at some discovery in a dream in which his late grandmother of blessed memory appeared to him (the context of discovery), that should interest no one, so long as the findings stand up to the empirical test (the context of justification). Moreover, the purpose of the research and the motivation for conducting it are also of no importance whatsoever. What matters is only its validity and its contribution to understanding the field in question. Beyond that, the researcher is supposed to be free of ideological or other shackles, answerable only to the authority of truth and the findings themselves. Furthermore, research is not supposed to take into account whether it is harmful or beneficial, but only the discovery of truth. The institutions that fund research may of course decide which studies to finance, what to promote, and whether and how to use the findings, but researchers are supposed to investigate the truth and engage in whatever field interests them. Nothing more. Any mixing of this kind is harmful and biases the research, effectively stripping it of its character as science.

Of course, scientific researchers are not ministering angels, and many of them have motivations and influences, such as ideologies and various beliefs, and of course also a desire and an interest to apply the findings in different directions. Sometimes agendas are also involved in the choice of the research field and its methodology, but all of these are phenomena which, even if they are sometimes not harmful and even legitimate, have no scientific significance whatsoever. These tendencies, biases, applications, and interests are the researcher’s own affair, whereas the scientific community is interested only in the results and their validity. No one would ever think of discussing at a conference of physicists the place of agenda in scientific research and the researcher’s commitment to promoting environmental quality, or growing lettuce on the moon, or producing ballistic missiles for the sake of world peace. If a given researcher wants to apply his findings for one goal or another, that is of course his right. But he does this not as a researcher, but as a private individual with whatever views he may have. The moment he mixes this into the research itself, he betrays his scientific role, and his research becomes prone to distortion and tendentiousness. It is important to understand that this does not depend at all on whether I regard his goals as worthy or not, or whether they are good or bad. The goals of scientific research, beyond the accumulation of knowledge itself, simply by virtue of being such, are not the concern of science or of the scientific community. At most, one might have a conference of sociologists that deals with the scientific community and its defects, and there they would discuss how to neutralize the harmful influence of all these biases and interests. But that is certainly not a matter to be discussed at a conference of researchers from the scientific field itself, where they would put their heads together about how to advance interests and agendas unrelated to research.

The interdisciplinary conference

Here is the announcement I received:

Reading this, I wondered how many research students in physics or mathematics would want to attend, or would actually attend, this interdisciplinary conference—a question that became even sharper after I saw the questions the conference was supposed to address. My gaze drifted for a moment to the right, where I saw headlines floating in the air and scrolls burning, which stirred melancholy thoughts in me about the tendencies of this conference and of these fields generally. Is there anything in them beyond agendas and their advancement? Have those who work in these fields lost even the last remnants of shame? Schemes once hatched in secret are now placed on the table with unhidden pride.

I will leave these questions to the fertile imagination of the reader, and here I will simply share with you a few reflections that occurred to me on reading those questions. The remarks are arranged according to the order of the directions proposed in the above call for papers, but first one more short introduction.

Nonsense Studies: Between Science and Academia

My sister studied criminology in her criminal past. She told me that almost every course there began with a definition and discussion of what science is. You can imagine that I, who studied physics and engineering, encountered discussion of these questions in none of the courses I took (unfortunately). It was clear to both of us that a guilty conscience was at work.

In my view, the connection between fields such as sociology, anthropology, gender, education, and the like, and science is fairly accidental. Most of the activity in them is not really scientific. That does not mean that this is necessarily worthless or invalid research (just as scientific research is not necessarily valid and/or valuable). The nature of these fields (at least as of today) is such that they barely allow the use of precise techniques like those of the natural sciences, and they deal with claims that are vaguer and less amenable to quantification and prediction. It is no wonder that in recent years what is euphemistically called qualitative research (=Wikipedia: “a term for types of research that do not use numerical data and statistical analyses of such data, unlike quantitative research methods“. Translation into ordinary human language: “a label for an activity of artistic and expressive value, if any, which for some reason and through no fault of its own wishes to shelter under the heading ‘scientific research'”) is accumulating popularity and legitimacy. The moment you understand that your scientific standing is being undermined, or rather that your nakedness is being exposed, what you must do is define your field with a new word, sufficiently impressive, and thus leave its legitimacy intact and even strengthen it. Thus, for example, a field like alchemy could have saved its status if it had only defined itself as “failure-oriented non-foundational research” (=Wikipedia: research methods that do not place success and research reliability at the top of their priorities, and are not based on data). Alternatively, think how much the rubber-band jumping game could have enhanced its status if only it had adopted the definition “multi-string jumping research within play circles in the upper grades of elementary school.” In my opinion, that name alone is already a candidate for the Wolf Prize (or perhaps an Oscar).

In most cases in these fields, even in the better cases where there is some value to the work, this is research that is more properly called academic rather than scientific. The use of the term science in these contexts is intended to grant them the aura that surrounds the natural sciences, though they have done nothing to deserve it. The label I tend to use for these fields, “nonsense studies,” does not necessarily express contempt for them, but mainly for their scientific pretensions. Indeed, there is quite a bit of conceptual garbage and valueless activity there, but even the part that has value usually has nothing whatsoever to do with science. One should also distinguish between two different kinds of non-scientific academic fields. There are fields like the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and literature, which are not scientific but sometimes engage in research for the sake of knowledge (and sometimes not). And there are fields in which there is almost nothing beyond ideology and the promotion of various fashionable agendas. This is essentially an academic fashion show.

As we shall now see, the call for papers brought above reflects very sharply and clearly—beyond the sheer lack of shame—the dimension of nonsense in the deteriorating fields of the second type (the fashion show). To see this, we will now examine the questions and directions listed there one by one (and we will do so quantitatively, of course—that is, by attaching a number to each item).

1. What research motivations drive us to conduct research?

Above I noted that academic research is supposed to be conducted out of a desire to investigate and know, and not out of any other motivation. We saw that this does not necessarily mean that a researcher has no motivations in the background of his research (we are all human beings), but those motivations are of no relevance whatsoever to the research, nor should they be. Discussion at an academic conference of these motivations and of the researcher’s political commitments indicates, by the very fact that it is being held, the depths to which nonsense studies have sunk. And it makes no difference at all what answers are given to these questions.

I cannot understand what they are going to discuss there: the optimal way to conceal findings that do not fit the agenda? And in the best-case scenario, the trivial obligation not to do so? Or perhaps they will examine ways of distorting them so that they will be politically correct? Or perhaps how to silence those who will nevertheless try to publish them? (A qualitative tip of my own, free of charge: the simplest thing is to accuse them of having an agenda and subversive schemes. Tried and tested.)

Perhaps I am confused and this conference is not really about sociology at all, but about the sociology of academic research, and its purpose is to overcome the undesirable tendency of researchers in these fields to mix agenda into research. There is certainly scholarly interest in exposing the various techniques used by tendentious researchers and in mapping their motivations for conducting their biased studies. If so, I beg their pardon and concede that this is indeed an important conference. But I must say that, to the best of my qualitative impression, that is not what is involved here.

2. Are there silenced issues that are not open to investigation?

It is not clear to me whether the purpose of the discussion is to expose these issues and encourage researchers to deal with them, or rather to clarify whether it is proper that there be such issues, and perhaps even to preach in favor of such silencing. I do not know whether there are silenced issues (though I assume there are), but I can already contribute an insight of my own: there are quite a few silenced positions and silenced findings. And one more piece of advice: if you want to look for them, do not do so among those who speak about silenced positions. They are usually the greatest silencers.

3. What is the responsibility of the female researcher to her female research subjects?

First, the gendered phrasing of the question raises for me three additional questions: the responsibility of the male researcher to his male subjects (1) and to his female subjects (2), and the responsibility of the female researcher to her male subjects (3): will these three important questions also be discussed at the conference, or will only female researchers and female subjects be discussed? If so, then we have found three silenced topics (please update item 2).

Even assuming (reasonably) that this is merely a bizarre and foolish expression of political correctness, the substantive question arises: I do not understand why female researchers are supposed to be responsible for their female subjects, or in what sense. If the intention is to make sure no harm is caused in the course of the research, that seems fairly trivial to me, does it not? I therefore conclude that this is probably not what is meant. So what responsibility does a female researcher have toward her female subjects? Is the purpose of academic research to advance one cause or another (good as they may be)? That is exactly what I said: apparently, in the eyes of many of them, yes.

According to this social and enlightened conception of science and academic research, after our energetic female researcher examines some question concerning rape victims, she is supposed to treat them, contribute money to them, and in fact she is obliged not to publish findings that would harm their attempt to secure the maximum punishment for the rapist. And perhaps it would also be wise not to publish findings that would make the public aware of cases of false complaints. There you have science in the service of law and society. But perhaps all this stems from ignorance, and it would be worthwhile for me to attend the conference so as to become more knowledgeable on the matter.

4. How does the researcher’s methodology reflect his social views?

For the sake of brevity I will skip the silenced questions about the views of female researchers, which for some reason will not be discussed at this important and politically correct conference. But it is worth paying attention to the wording, which is surely not accidental: this is not about “whether” but about “how.” That is, there is a self-evident assumption that the researcher’s views are reflected in his methodology, and who am I to contest an admission against interest?! But perhaps the views of a female researcher are not like that. I very much hope that the views of the female researchers who organize the conference will not affect the findings regarding the involvement of their own views in their research.

5. Can the methodology of research be a tool for social change?

Here we must once again return to item 1. The moment research and research methodology are enlisted for social change, they are biased and therefore invalid from the outset. Again, there is no principled objection to using findings for social purposes, but that is not the business of an academic conference. Every researcher (or female researcher) may do as he or she sees fit, but why and how does this pertain to the research and to an academic discussion about it? When an academic discussion is conducted about these matters, that is a sign that agendas are being pushed within the academic framework itself—that is, that research is being prostituted. And from this it follows that the budget given to these fields is nothing but a harlot’s fee (and therefore, in any case, there is nothing to do with it).

6. What is the relation between objectivity and ethics in research and political commitment?

What indeed is the relation between them? The wording here no longer leaves room for imagination. If in some of the previous items we could have interpreted the goal as neutralizing the biases, here it is clear that the goal is to clarify the biases and ensure their proper (politically correct) existence. But the next item will make the matter even clearer.

7. How can one deal with a situation in which the findings do not accord with the female researcher’s worldview?

Very simple: ignore the female researcher’s worldview. And if that is difficult, then turn to a professional and take the appropriate pill. But again, the question here is plainly not how to overcome the bias, but how to incorporate it properly into the “research” and its lofty goals. The expected answer: bend the findings, conceal data, for worldview (so long as it is the “correct” worldview, of course) is above all.

8. Should we, and if so how, translate the results of research into social action?

Translation: if the research shows that the condition of women is excellent, should we immediately translate this into neutralizing all activity on behalf of equality, or should we instead work to conceal the data at once? If the research shows that conversion therapy for sexual orientation is not harmful and may even be beneficial—should one publish the findings for the public good, or should we conceal the findings as part of the commitment to social action? Since when is a researcher, or even a female researcher, committed to any kind of social action? Science in the service of society, as we already said? These “studies” ought to be funded from party-financing money, or perhaps from the budgets of the various government ministries. What do they have to do with academia?

A bleak summary

A considerable part of the activity in fields such as gender, government and politics, political science, sociology and anthropology, and others, is in fact agenda-driven biased research whose whole concern is the promotion of one idea or another. It has little connection with academic research, and certainly with scientific research; it is more of a fashion show. It is no wonder that from the researchers in these fields has come the postmodern message according to which there is no truth, and everything is politics and schemes. Our Sages already said, One who disqualifies others does so with his own defect. (one who disqualifies another does so with his own defect). They find it hard to see beyond their own horizon, and to notice that in physics, chemistry, or mathematics, the situation is usually different (although there too there are some problematic examples). Many of them are not really capable of understanding what is going on in the departments next to them, for what have they to do with science?!

In any event, if we adopt an optimistic perspective, perhaps one can see some progress in the holding of such a conference, for after all, one can detect here glimmers of intellectual honesty. Nonsense studies are finally aware, and even openly admit, that what is involved are movements for the promotion of political and ideological agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with science. But they will truly deserve that appreciation only if they also agree to draw the conclusions—namely, to give up the scientific aura and officially join either as an intellectual arm (at best) of political and ideological movements, or as an executive arm of various government ministries responsible for advancing different populations (education, welfare, the elderly, social equality, and the like). They should request and receive their funding from those parties, movements, and ministries and through them. The budget for higher education, academia, and science should be left to nonpartisan fields in which people seek scientific truth and not the promotion of agendas, however good and useful they may be—and certainly not bad and unhelpful agendas of the sort customary in those dubious precincts. In my opinion, that should not be funded at all.

[1] On this occasion, thanks to the sharp-eyed Noam Oren for this WhatsApp message.