American astronomer John Kormendy had an extraordinary university and scientific career, he was heaped with accolades and social memberships, but now he has been struck down by the iron fist of the neo-Bolshevik vanguard.
He published a scientific thesis - before it was printed - on how to exclude subjective factors in the case of scientific posts. This outraged the professional aggrieved parties so much that they not only removed the study from the American Academy of Sciences' announcements page, but also prevented it from being printed, and even Kormendy's already printed book on the subject is not allowed to be distributed.
Both the study and the book went through the usual, anonymous proofreading of scientific publications, which is carried out by similarly qualified scientists (peer review). As Heather Mac Donald, of the article , writes, she spoke with Kormendy. He said he didn't do anything wrong. He used the right technique for his research, and considers the results to be reliable. On November 1, however, he published an apology.
Now I see that my work has offended people. I apologize for the ordeal and pain I caused. Nothing could be further from what I hoped for. I fully support all efforts for equity, inclusion and an enriching environment for all
Kormendy wrote.
One can only scratch one's head: why would a scientist apologize for a scientific study that complied with the rules of the profession? Why can a scientific publication cause pain, and if it does, why should it not be tolerated? During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, news came about how famous intellectuals, teachers, and scientists practiced self-criticism under the pressure of the Red Guards, who were much stupider than them.
So, what was offensive about Kormendy's study? The astronomer created a model that, based on the citations of a scientist's early publications, predicts the long-term impact he will have on science. He tested his model with a panel of twenty-two respected astronomers. They classified the impact on science of five hundred and twelve astronomers, whom Kormendy included in his model. Their judgment was very close to the model's prediction. That is, based on the early publications, the model identified the same astronomers as those who will advance science, who are considered outstanding by the best in their own profession.
Kormendy's thesis highlighted that the expected scientific impact is only one of the application aspects. The balance between genders and races is also a legitimate consideration. However, this was not enough for today's Red Guards: according to an astrophysicist at New York University, Kormendy destroyed the small steps that had been achieved so far in terms of equality.
Another Hungarian thread
A Budapest astronomer complained that Kormendy did not consult with "relevant experts in the humanities" about the "cumulative prejudices" against women and minorities. Moreover, Kormendy did not have the guts to suggest, writes his critic, that women and minority scientists be hired who achieve the success rate of the majority, i.e. men.
It's not the first time
The withdrawal of Kormendy's study is the fifth in recent years. Among them was a mathematical model that explained why evolution favors a greater variability in the inherited traits of the males of a species. Another study found that in science education, men achieve better results in mentoring students. The authors also "deeply regret" that they "caused pain".
The American Geophysical Union did not award its usual fellowship in October. Because all three candidates - who were duly recommended during the selection process - were men. By the way, the selection procedure is such that women have a fifty percent greater chance of receiving a scholarship than men.
From now on, if a woman is appointed to a scientific position in America, she will not deny that she is a quota woman. After all, it is not performance that matters, but "equality". However, science does not recognize social equality, only the increase of knowledge through the free exchange of ideas and the careful control of results.
recently presented a study on cognitive warfare written for NATO two articles The goal of cognitive warfare is to deprive the opponent of knowledge, of the knowledge that makes them resistant to attempts to influence. NATO identifies Russia and China as the most to be feared for their cognitive warfare capabilities. Although the enemy is within the walls: the new Red Guards, who are now fighting the Chinese Cultural Revolution in America and spreading from there to the countries of the West. According to the old recipe, fighting for "social justice" and "against inequality" they destroy our culture and deliver societies to the new vandals.
Featured image / source: Gábor Sebes / PS
