Yesterday 05:10 PM
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/the-...-skeptics/
EXCERPTS: It seemed to me that these two schools of thought on sex were primarily determined by political ideology, and I still think that is playing a significant role. This is especially true among non-biologists, who mostly just accept the definition that fits their political opinions. This also allows for both sides to claim that science is on their side, and the other side is engaging in pseudoscience and allowing their politics to influence their scientific reasoning. This is pretty much where things sit – two entrenched sides largely talking past each other. This is not a good look for a group that identifies as skeptics and presumes to communicate science to the public.
[...] Rather than debating endlessly about what “the” definition of sex is, many scientists have already provided a reasonable solution – just use different terms for the different frameworks of sex. As I discovered, “biological sex” is one such term, specifically developed to refer to the multidimensional approach. ... we can simply refer to gametic sex, hormonal sex, chromosomal sex, biological sex, and morphological sex without worrying about which one is better, or more problematic, “correct”. They all have their use and their proper context.
Which leads to my final point – what is important is not imposing one framework on another discipline where it is not appropriate. We should respect each other’s areas of expertise, and recognize that different scientific disciplines have their own perspective. If evolutionary biologists agree that gametic sex makes the most sense as a universal definition of sex that applies across taxa, then I have no reason to disagree with them. It makes sense, and I can see the logic and utility of that definition. It is a unifying concept, just as evolution itself is across all of biology.
But evolutionary biologists should understand that geneticists and developmental biologists, and sociologists, and medical specialists have their own perspectives... (MORE - details)
COMMENT: Dissection of the muddled situation probably puts an unintentional feather in the cap of postmodern philosophy of science, where the interpretative biases of scientists are factored in. Via the culture of the communities they live in, the institutions or industries they work for, and the background theories or presuppositions of their particular disciplines. The soft sciences that revolve around humans (social, psychological) are notoriously less reliable or seemingly plagued by much revision and invalid science errors, and that encroaches a bit into medical research and biology (though certainly not the entire range of the latter; concerns all organisms, not just humans).
"Postmodern philosophy of science critiques traditional views by emphasizing the influence of social, political, and economic factors on scientific knowledge and practices. It challenges the notion of objective truth in science, suggesting that scientific achievements are often interpreted through the lens of cultural and historical contexts."
EXCERPTS: It seemed to me that these two schools of thought on sex were primarily determined by political ideology, and I still think that is playing a significant role. This is especially true among non-biologists, who mostly just accept the definition that fits their political opinions. This also allows for both sides to claim that science is on their side, and the other side is engaging in pseudoscience and allowing their politics to influence their scientific reasoning. This is pretty much where things sit – two entrenched sides largely talking past each other. This is not a good look for a group that identifies as skeptics and presumes to communicate science to the public.
[...] Rather than debating endlessly about what “the” definition of sex is, many scientists have already provided a reasonable solution – just use different terms for the different frameworks of sex. As I discovered, “biological sex” is one such term, specifically developed to refer to the multidimensional approach. ... we can simply refer to gametic sex, hormonal sex, chromosomal sex, biological sex, and morphological sex without worrying about which one is better, or more problematic, “correct”. They all have their use and their proper context.
Which leads to my final point – what is important is not imposing one framework on another discipline where it is not appropriate. We should respect each other’s areas of expertise, and recognize that different scientific disciplines have their own perspective. If evolutionary biologists agree that gametic sex makes the most sense as a universal definition of sex that applies across taxa, then I have no reason to disagree with them. It makes sense, and I can see the logic and utility of that definition. It is a unifying concept, just as evolution itself is across all of biology.
But evolutionary biologists should understand that geneticists and developmental biologists, and sociologists, and medical specialists have their own perspectives... (MORE - details)
COMMENT: Dissection of the muddled situation probably puts an unintentional feather in the cap of postmodern philosophy of science, where the interpretative biases of scientists are factored in. Via the culture of the communities they live in, the institutions or industries they work for, and the background theories or presuppositions of their particular disciplines. The soft sciences that revolve around humans (social, psychological) are notoriously less reliable or seemingly plagued by much revision and invalid science errors, and that encroaches a bit into medical research and biology (though certainly not the entire range of the latter; concerns all organisms, not just humans).
"Postmodern philosophy of science critiques traditional views by emphasizing the influence of social, political, and economic factors on scientific knowledge and practices. It challenges the notion of objective truth in science, suggesting that scientific achievements are often interpreted through the lens of cultural and historical contexts."