[ch4s3]

The "the science of biology" is also excludes from physics, computer science, languages, classics, English, political science, etc. What's your point? Are you implying that an academic field that studies the gender constructs of society is somehow intrinsically anti-science?

[nemo44x]

I'm just saying social constructionism isn't science but portrays itself as science. Biology is _specifically_ left out of the conversation on purpose because it conflicts with the theory. The theories found in a women's or gender studies course would be more valuable if they included relevant hard science instead of purposefully avoiding it. Just like how an EE program utilizes relevant sciences. Or linguists for another example.

I'm not a disgruntled person crack-potting here. This is a complaint of many highly regarded people who spend considerable time studying and critiquing these disciplines. Camille Paglia comes to mind.

[ch4s3]

Paglia mostly seems to argue that the current state of the field is too abstract, which strikes me as being similar to Computer Scientists complaining about the lack of focus on electrical engineering. She also seems to spend a lot of time and words just calling people smug.

I'm not really up on the literature, but I don't see an inherent problem in focusing on abstract and high level ideas. I'm also not sure that biology offers much insight into the way society constructs gender roles. Even Paglia who you cite only seems to use biology to describe a theory for the underlying causes of sexual coercion.

[nemo44x]

I suggest you pick up and read "Galileo's Middle Finger" [1] by Alice Dreger. In short it points to hypocrisy when dogma and science collide. When your worldview is shattered by actual science and how we can be better people by not politicizing science only when convenient.

NYMag had a decent review too. [2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Middle-Finger-Heretics-Activ...

[2] http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-so...

[ch4s3]

I'm familiar with the premise, and don't disagree. I'm just of the opinion that for a social science to ignore biology is probably fine at a certain level of abstraction. I'm not arguing anything else at all.

Again, this is a bit outside of the areas in social science in which I regularly read. So if a particular set of dogmatic ideas run counter to our best scientific understanding, then those ideas deserve criticism. I think we agree on that.

[nemo44x]

I'm not an expert in these topics either. So I'd agree if used responsibly there's certainly room to abstract something away. So long as the sophisticated theory it is derived from and simplifies does not. And that's my problem.

My only point in my original comment was that the deliberate rejection of empiricism isn't reserved just for the dogma of the rightwing in the USA. The leftwing is just as guilty. And this concerns me a lot.

Seriously, if you find time read the book I recommended. Or at least the NYTimes or NYMag's review of it.

[ch4s3]

Yeah, I read the review a while back actually. While I agree that science denialism isn't the sole domain of the American right, it is think more broadly embraced in right of center political circles, and I believe the most visible public science deniers in the US are part of the political right. I don't think that's anything inherent in the political ideology per se, but a result recent historical accident, the "southern strategy", and the embrace by the American right of evangelical voters.

That said, the left has anti-vaccine nuts so no political leaning is immune.