jeudi 5 octobre 2017

The new negationism




First, They Came for the Biologists

The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but

Who would have guessed that when America cleaved, the left would get the National Football League and the right would get uncontested custody of science?
The revolution on college campuses, which seeks to eradicate individuals and ideas that are considered unsavory, constitutes a hostile takeover by fringe elements on the extreme left. Last spring at the Evergreen State College, where I was a professor for 15 years, the revolution was televised—proudly and intentionally—by the radicals. Opinions not fitting with the currently accepted dogma—that all white people are racist, that questioning policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” is itself an act of white supremacy—would not be tolerated, and those who disagreed were shouted down, hunted, assaulted, even battered. Similar eruptions have happened all over the country.
What may not be obvious from outside academia is that this revolution is an attack on Enlightenment values: reason, inquiry and dissent. Extremists on the left are going after science. Why? Because science seeks truth, and truth isn’t always convenient.
The left has long pointed to deniers of climate change and evolution to demonstrate that over here, science is a core value. But increasingly, that’s patently not true.
The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.
Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas.
Science is imperfect: It is slow and methodical, and it makes errors. But it does work. We have microchips, airplanes and streetlights to show for it.
In a meeting with administrators at Evergreen last May, protesters called, on camera, for college president George Bridges to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans. Mr. Bridges offers: “[What] we are working towards is, bring ’em in, train ’em, and if they don’t get it, sanction them.”
Despite the benevolent-sounding label, the equity movement is a highly virulent social pathogen, an autoimmune disease of the academy. Diversity offices, the very places that were supposed to address bigotry and harassment, have been weaponized and repurposed to catch and cull all who disagree. And the attack on STEM is no accident. Once scientists are silenced, narratives can be fully unhooked from any expectation that they be put to the test of evidence. Last month, Evergreen made it clear that they wanted two of its scientists gone—my husband, Bret Weinstein, and me, despite our stellar reputations with the students they claimed to be protecting. First, they came for the biologists . . .
Science has sometimes been used to rationalize both atrocity and inaction in its face. But conflating science with its abuse has become a favorite trope of extremists on the left. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and not, dare I say, very logical.
Science creates space for the free exchange of ideas, for discovery, for progress. What has postmodernism done for you lately?
Ms. Heying is a former biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.

Citrons traités (Lemons with biocides and waxes): are they market lemons of G. Akerlof?

Je reçois ce message à propos de: http://dysnutrition.blogspot.fr/2010/01/pourquoi-payer-moins-cher-avec-imazalil.html





"IMAZILIL : ce produit est autorisé par le gouvernement Français Chinois et Canadien mais interdit ailleurs car engendrerait des risques de propagation de cancers prouvés sur des rats en laboratoires !!! 
TOXICOLOGIE / VOIR WIKIPEDIA et il continue à etre autorisé ! 
Achat de citron en filet d'1 kg à carrefour Mt Saint Aignan 76 , provenance d'Espagne
emballé pour bici fresh S.L Torreaguera-Murcia : traitement chimique après récolte avec IMAZILIL ! 
Pour les pommes de terre c'est exact , j'ai eu la meme réflexion en voyant mis en vente encore à carrefour, la meme notification d'interdiction à la consommation . 
En clair des pommes de terres impropres à la consommation humaine ou animale seraient malgré cette dangerosité bonnes pour les clients de carrefour ! 
La meilleur des solutions pour qu'ils arretent de nous vendre la mort dans leurs nos assiettes c'est de boycotter les produits qui sont impactés par les pesticides et autres saloperies . Leurs ventes chuteront et les gros distributeurs qui se font de la tune sur la santé des populations seront bien obligés de commercialiser des produits plus sains .
Attention n'achetez pas des ananas autre que labellisés bio les autres sont bourrés de produits polluants accélérateurs de cultures . 
Et plutôt que d'aller dans les supermarket faites un détour allez chez les paysans qui vendent directement leurs production à la ferme . Ils vous diront de vive voix comment le produit à été cultivé et la viande élevée avec une traçabilité immédiate "



Quelqu'un sait-il si l'imazilil est autorisé en France?


http://www.econ.yale.edu/~dirkb/teach/pdf/akerlof/themarketforlemons.pdf