#scientific inquiry

[anxietyfrappuccino]

what's an obscure topic for scientific research

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Christina Buttons

Published: May 31, 2024

The prominent science journal Nature has launched a new opinion article series on sex and gender. One paper in this series explores research attempting to search for a biological basis for trans-identity, arguing that such research could “pathologize” and “harm” the trans community. The authors discourage “investigations into the underlying bases of transgender identity” and propose various steps for researchers to incorporate transgender activism into their work to influence research outcomes — signaling the end of Nature’s commitment to pursuing scientific truth over ideology.

The article starts by reviewing neuroscientific studies aimed at finding the cause of trans-identity in the brain, identifying 83 papers from 1991-2024. It highlights the transgender brain-sex hypothesis, which suggests that trans-identified people have brain regions resembling those of the opposite sex. However, it neglects to mention that this hypothesis falls apart because the studies did not control for confounding variables such as sexual orientation.

The article does acknowledge that “the results of these analyses have been inconsistent.” Yet, when the media covers these studies, the public is often informed by headlines such as “transgender people are born that way,” “science proves trans people aren’t making it up,” and “attacks on trans people are also attacks on science itself.” You can read a simplified explainer I wrote debunking the brain-sex studies here.

The authors move on to the more plausible “own-body perception” theory, which proposes that reduced structural and functional connectivity between certain brain networks is responsible for gender dysphoria. However, these studies do not show a causal link, only an association. Abnormalities in body perception networks in the brain are also associated with many other conditions, including body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia, body integrity identity disorder, schizophrenia, and autism.

After reviewing the neuroscientific studies, the article’s language shifts into typical activist rhetoric, claiming that research into transgender identity can be “harmful.” The authors argue that if brain scans or some other objective test could assess whether someone is experiencing gender dysphoria, it could be used to prevent people from accessing cross-sex hormones and surgeries if they are not deemed “eligible.”

"A second possibility is that neuroscientific findings related to transgender identity will fuel transphobic narratives," the authors write, citing a “feminist perspective” social science journal article on "Transprejudice."

For example, they state, "Some people argue that allowing transgender women to access infrastructure, such as public toilets or women’s prisons, threatens the safety of 'real women'." It is odd and audacious for a serious science publication to use "real women" in quotations. Moreover, their source for this claim is an article about Kathleen Stock, who does not argue that transgender women threaten the safety of biological women. In fact, she explicitly states the opposite: "I am definitely not saying that trans women are particularly dangerous – they are definitely not."

The authors also take a dig at sexologist Ray Blanchard, claiming that autogynephilia “hasn’t held up to scientific scrutiny,” citing a "feminist analysis" paper by a trans activist. Apparently, they haven't spent any time on trans Reddit, where they would encounter a vast discourse on "gender euphoria boners."

The authors end by setting “four actions” for researchers studying transgender people to prevent further “harm” from being done. They suggest researchers set up an advisory board and multidisciplinary teams consisting of transgender people to consult on their study designs and “prevent the outcomes of neuroscientific and other studies from being described and published in an overly deterministic and simplistic way.” They also dictate what should and should not be studied, suggesting researchers "prioritize research that is likely to improve people’s lives" rather than searching for the cause of trans-identity.

The final suggestion is to “rethink how ethical approval is obtained,” which relates to an example they provided of a 2021 UCLA study that was suspended after significant backlash from transgender activists. The study aimed to examine the brains of trans-identified individuals by showing them images of themselves wearing tight clothes, intending to trigger gender dysphoria. Although the study obtained ethical approval from their research institute and the transgender participants provided informed consent, it seems they weren't the right transgender people to ask permission from. Their suggestion implies that researchers must obtain approval for their studies from transgender activists.

The authors seem aware of the implications of their recommendations, as they conclude their article by admitting their approach would limit scientific inquiry:

“Our aim is not to halt scientific enquiry. But when it comes to transgender identity, knowledge cannot be pursued in isolation from the many societal factors that shape how that knowledge is received and acted on.”

This statement translates to prioritizing activism over truth-seeking when the findings might be inconvenient or misaligned with political narratives and activist goals. Such a stance compromises the integrity and credibility of science, reducing it to a tool for activism rather than a means of uncovering and understanding reality.

It is disheartening to watch one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals compromise their credibility by continuing to prioritize ideology over truth.

Besides, the authors' concerns about discovering a biological cause for trans-identity are misplaced. While there are biological traits associated with being transgender, such as same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity, “transgender” itself does not appear to be an inherent condition one can be born with. The concept of "transgender," as understood in Western cultures, is a cultural construct that doesn't have a direct equivalent in many non-Western societies.

Research into a cause for gender dysphoria would be difficult because the transgender population has become so heterogeneous. Even if one were predisposed to a psychiatric condition like gender dysphoria, predispositions are not predeterminations of a transgender outcome. The notion of transgender identities being fixed at birth is further contested by the increasing number of detransitioners and extensive research on desistance among children, suggesting that such identities can often be temporary coping mechanisms for young people in distress.

==

We're just supposed to accept that hacking off body parts and giving life-altering drugs and hormones is a completely normal part of life. And that wondering where this is all coming from, what's underlying it is the problematic part.

At its core, the point of this ideology is to pathologize the completely normal and normalize the pathological.

Carl Sagan warned us about this:

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." ― Carl Sagan

Reality is not obliged to conform to people's wishes or preferences, and we are not obligated to lie or consign ourselves to ignorance in order to placate those wishes and preferences. We don't allow "if you find out what's true, it'll hurt our feelings" - i.e. blasphemy - for the religious. Why are we allowing genderist fanatics to get away with it, when it's still just an accusation of blasphemy?

When people say, "you're not allowed to go looking over here, it's a moral failing to do so," the correct response is to go, "now I want to go look over there even more."

-

"Sex is real... But the belief that we have a moral duty to accept reality just because it is real is, I think, a fine definition of nihilism." ― Andrea Long Chu, gender cultist and lunatic

“The facts may tell you one thing. But, God is not limited by the facts. Choose faith in spite of the facts.” ― Joel Osteen, religious nutcase and lunatic

[underbootsociety]

Senshifuckers i have an important query

Images for reference under the cut

[switchjpg]

anyone here ever tried amazon position? is it one of those things that looks fun and then is fun or does it look fun but then it actually sucks

[mirrankei]

Hello Tumblr, I’ve been doing a thing for grad school and it’s finally finished and hopefully my body will recover from the lack of sleep and insane amounts of stress soon.

This is a series of videos about art, scientific inquiry, conservation, and other stuff, with 50ish original artworks, by me, most of which have timelapses, for the project (and other art I’ve made that wasn’t specifically for this), plus live footage and photos and a little bit of stock footage because I didn’t want to go searching for pigeons and giraffes when I was already so far behind

It is hopefully pretty fun despite being infodumps, it includes a lot of dumb cartoons and videos of my cat (including a whole bonus vlog of me taking him on a walk if you’re into that kind of thing)

If you can’t tell from this kind of random selection of artwork, the videos are about:

Doing art at the zoo/scientific inquiry

Domestic animals and the effects of free-roaming

and interacting with urban wildlife

Soooo if you’re interested in any of that, please give it a watch. I might make more videos in this vein in the future (without the stress of it being for school, I plan to actually sleep next time). 

I don’t have subtitles up yet but hopefully will soon. 

here’s more random pics

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of Philosophy of Science

The philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature of scientific inquiry, the methods and assumptions of science, and the relationship between science and other areas of human inquiry.

Here are some key theories in the philosophy of science:

Positivism: This is the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge, and that all knowledge should be based on empirical observation and experimentation.

Falsificationism: This is the view that scientific theories can never be proven, but can only be falsified by evidence that contradicts them. According to this view, scientific theories should be tested by making predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified.

Constructivism: This is the view that scientific knowledge is socially constructed, and that scientific theories are shaped by cultural and historical factors, as well as by the interests and values of scientists and the broader society.

Kuhnian theory: This is the view that scientific progress occurs through a process of paradigm shifts, in which older scientific theories are replaced by new ones that better explain the data and provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding the natural world.

Bayes' theorem: This is a mathematical theorem that provides a way to update our beliefs in light of new evidence. In the context of the philosophy of science, it is often used to model scientific reasoning and the process of hypothesis testing.

Empiricism: This is the view that all knowledge comes from experience, and that empirical observation and experimentation are the only valid sources of knowledge.

Rationalism: This is the view that some knowledge comes from reason alone, independent of experience. Rationalists argue that there are certain truths that can be known a priori, or without the need for empirical evidence.

Reductionism: This is the view that complex phenomena can be explained by reducing them to their constituent parts or fundamental processes. In the philosophy of science, reductionism often takes the form of attempting to reduce higher-level phenomena (such as psychology or economics) to the laws of physics.

Pragmatism: This is the view that the value of a theory lies in its practical usefulness, rather than in its correspondence to some objective reality. Pragmatists argue that scientific theories should be evaluated based on their ability to solve problems and make predictions, rather than on their correspondence to some objective reality.

Feminist empiricism: This is a view that emphasizes the importance of including the experiences and perspectives of women and other marginalized groups in scientific inquiry. Feminist empiricists argue that scientific knowledge is not value-neutral, but is instead shaped by social and cultural factors that often exclude the perspectives of women and minorities.

Critical theory: This is a perspective that emphasizes the social and political dimensions of scientific inquiry. Critical theorists argue that scientific knowledge is often used to reinforce existing power structures and to perpetuate social inequalities, and that scientific inquiry should be used to promote social justice and equality.

Naturalism: This is the view that everything in the universe is governed by natural laws and processes, and that there are no supernatural or metaphysical entities or forces. Naturalism is often associated with the scientific worldview, which seeks to explain natural phenomena through empirical observation and experimentation.

Historical materialism: This is a perspective that emphasizes the importance of historical and social context in shaping scientific inquiry. Historical materialists argue that scientific theories are shaped by the historical and social conditions in which they are developed, and that scientific progress occurs through a dialectical process in which new theories emerge in response to contradictions and problems in existing theories.

Coherentism: This is a view that emphasizes the importance of the internal consistency and coherence of scientific theories. Coherentists argue that scientific theories should be evaluated based on their coherence with other established theories, rather than on their correspondence to some external reality.

Instrumentalism: This is the view that scientific theories are simply tools or instruments for predicting and controlling phenomena, rather than representations of an objective reality. Instrumentalists argue that scientific theories should be evaluated based on their practical usefulness, rather than on their correspondence to some external reality.

Realism: This is the view that scientific theories provide accurate descriptions or representations of an objective reality. Realists argue that scientific knowledge is grounded in the observation of empirical data, and that scientific theories are more or less true depending on how well they correspond to the facts of the world.

Social epistemology: This is a perspective that emphasizes the social and collective dimensions of scientific inquiry. Social epistemologists argue that scientific knowledge is produced and validated through social interactions and processes of collective inquiry, and that the social context of scientific inquiry is therefore an important factor in determining the validity and reliability of scientific theories.

Structuralism: This is a view that emphasizes the importance of the structure and organization of scientific theories. Structuralists argue that scientific theories consist of interrelated concepts and relations, and that the structure of a theory is more important than its individual components.

Phenomenology: This is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the study of subjective experience and consciousness. In the philosophy of science, phenomenologists argue that scientific inquiry must take into account the subjective experiences of scientists and the subjects they study, and that scientific knowledge is always situated within a particular historical and cultural context.

These are just a few examples of theories in the philosophy of science. There are many other perspectives and debates in this field, and philosophers of science continue to explore the nature of scientific inquiry and its role in our understanding of the world.

[myriadism]

A question for any feral botanists out there on tumbrland--

Do plants have sex? By sex I mean genders, but also sexy gene exchange stuff as well. I wanna know the lowdown on plant genders! 🪴 I must know, how do plants Fuck???

[frnwhcom]

Mark O'Shea: Pioneering Conservation and Enlightenment in the World of Reptiles

Mark O’Shea, a British herpetologist, author, lecturer, and television personality, has significantly impacted animal science, particularly in the study of reptiles. His work has spanned several decades, encompassing research, conservation efforts, and public education, making him a prominent figure in the field. This article delves into how O’Shea has influenced animal science through his…

[consuetudinari0]

Manly Palmer Hall Collection of Alchemical Manuscripts

[raffaellopalandri]

Alchemy for Paracelsus

“Alchemy is the art that separates what is useful from what is not by transforming it into its ultimate matter and essence.”Paracelsus I have always found this quote from Paracelsus, a 16th-century Swiss physician and philosopher, as one of those concise statements that encapsulate the complex and multifaceted nature of alchemy. Alchemy, so rich in esoteric knowledge and symbolism, is the…

[everythingseasoning]

Personally I think that that one Black Mirror Episode was uncannily sharp and hit the nail on the head about the invisible difference between AI and humans, that AI (when not fully sentient) will always have this air of lifelessness; there is a harsh clarity of the inherent disconnection between human and AI, post-intimacy. The main character, the widow, was so grief-stricken by the sudden death of her lover, so much so that when she was given the option to try out a copy of him through AI messaging, she took it. That then turned into AI calling, and then— a realistic human copy of her husband. During the calls she’d become enamored by how accurately the AI (a human machine fed data on the widow’s recently passed husband) portrayed her late husband. The compassionate responses, camaraderie and banter, the thoughtful advice— it all felt like him. They cooked together, talked, had intimacy. She fell for him, even knowing he wasn’t human. But after maybe just a week or so, the wife was having an emotional crises. She stood at a windy cliff overlooking the hard waves of the ocean below, crashing and foaming white on blue. She was going to push the AI model off, as she was feeling so hurt and confused and betrayed that he was imitating something that was once real— only— that’s what it was: an imitation. …I haven’t watched the episode recently, but I wholeheartedly believe that this was an accurate portrayal of what could happen in the future. How Black Mirror could conceptualize this years ago, I don’t know. It’s amazing.

[the-unspeakable-tsar]

Diffusion, Tea, and Carbonated Liquids

I've noticed through multiple experiments that carbonated tea diffuses faster than regular water when at room temperature and colder. Is there any explanation for this?

[tenth-sentence]

In this section we'll explore some traditional tribal beliefs about animal (and human) homosexuality/transgender from around the world and examine the ways in which these ideas are relevant to contemporary scientific inquiry.

"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" - Bruce Bagemihl

[mrsjdavis]

This is SO GOOD.