The slow dismantling of Science

Dear Reader, I just finished the video of Professor Jordan Peterson's debate on the issue of bill C-16 in Canada. The following is an excerpt from an e-mail I sent to Professor Peterson regarding the debate. As the content might be interesting to many of you, I have decided to publish it here. This sort of content may become part of this website so please let me know whether this was of interest to you.

As somebody who is currently embarking on a Master of Science in the field of 'Forensic Science' I continuously doubt whether my work should be regarded as a Science or not. A lot of it relates to the application of techniques in cases where the circumstances are unknown and is hence more akin to the work of e.g. a doctor than that of a scientist. Of course there is research within the field to develop said techniques, which might very well be classified as a Science, however the whole field certainly is more technical rather than scientific. 

You may thus understand my anger about Mrs. Bryson's claims that the research on gender fluidity and identity is, and I quote, 'a CONCLUSIVE Science'. In my opinion this is most definitely not true. She continuously regurgitates the word 'peer review' as though this is what constitutes a science. The fact that a circle of 'experts' within one discipline agrees on the fundamental aspects of said field of inquiry does not prove its validity, nor does it establish it as a science.

Instead the word 'Science' encompasses many different aspects. Most strikingly the use of falsifiable predictions, experimental design to eliminate confounding factors and biases, incorporation of results of other fields and a precise definition of what you are measuring in a given experiment. I could of course go on, but I will not bore you any further with things you may already know or might easily read up on yourself.

I guess my point is that many of these so called 'conclusive Science[s]' are in fact not sciences at all. They lack the basic requirements and are often created within an echo chamber that communally announces their validity over and over. This not only gives their assertions a dangerous sense of validity in the public's eye (one only has to think about the game of telephone the media is playing with scientific press releases) but it also undermines the very concept of Science. It harms the trust people put into it and may lead to dangerous repercussions once the house of cards comes crumbling to the ground. 

In my own field (Forensic Science) a report by a US government group called PCAST recently came to the critical conclusion that many of the Forensic techniques in fact lack a strong scientific basis. This report is immensely important, especially for the young generation of Forensic (Scientists) being educated now. It is on us to reform the field and introduce more scientific rigor to be able to justify society's trust in our conclusions as they relate to criminal investigation. 

With the social sciences lying in ruins, such a report, or investigation, may be helpful to the public in general. Has an expert committee of real scientists ever reviewed the scientific basis and methodology of  say Gender Studies or Critical Race Theory?

I believe this to be critical in going forward as claims, such as the ones Mrs. Bryson brought forward, continue to be reinforced. The flaws of so called 'Social Sciences' must be investigated, documented and pointed out. Otherwise I fear we might bring Science down as a whole.

As Professor Peterson said in an interview with Theryn Meier a category breaks down once almost everything is included in it. This I fear may be the case with 'Science' as a whole if we do not protect it by ensuring quality standards associated with the term.

In going forward with the fight against the absurdities of modern Leftism I want to propose an investigation similar to the PCAST report on Forensic Science. A critical investigation into methodological flaws of the leading papers in areas such as Gender Studies might be a fruitful endeavor to start out with.

And now back to the paper on Fluid Dynamics I was meant to read right now. Please do let me know what you think about this topic.