Science writer Bjørn Vassnes has made waves in Norway with some odd ideas: Evolution has made men and women biologically different; gender studies have more in common with occultism than with science; real science is not just the postulates of a male dominated scientific priesthood, but a self-correcting process that compensates for individual mistakes and dogmatism.

Judging from reactions, you'd think Vassnes is the first person to popularize evolutionary biology in Norway. Perhaps he is, and the process fascinates me: What happens when you introduce a new idea that contradicts a culture's core beliefs? We already agree that there are no inherent differences between men and women, and here comes a person who claims publicly and repeatedly that, not only is this wrong, the kind of science that supports him is superior to the science behind gender research.

What happens is that you get a lot of startled people.

Reviewing Vassnes' recent book Livets dans - om kjønn, krig og kjærlighet (The Dance of Life - on Sex, War and Love), Morten Falck in Aftenposten dismisses Vassnes as an uncritical, ignorant science writer, who "bases an entire chapter on the Chimpanzee researcher Michael Ghiglieri, without mentioning that he is an ultra-conservative rape apologist". Will those ultra-conservative rape apologists never learn? Falck expands on his views on evolution in another article:

Scientists are mapping genes and processes on a molecular level, and are beginning to understand the chemical and electrical processes of the brain. The progress in biological knowledge has happened so fast the last couple of decades that it is easy to understand why the success makes some biologists over-confident, believing that all our emotions, reactions and social patterns have a biological explanation. ..

[E.O. Wilson's] message is perfect for those who have power, and want to preserve the world we have with its existing power relationships and gender role patterns. But for those who are oppressed it is bad news. If male dominance is an inherited trait, what then are the possibilities for womens liberation and equality?

An odd mistake to make for a science journalist: If evolutionary biology is politically harmful, that doesn't make it false. And since when was biological equality a prerequisite for legal equality? Even stranger, as Vassnes points out in his reply, Falck appears to believe that the gene is not the basic unit of evolution:

There are strong voices in biological science which go against [the views of Richard Dawkins]. For instance, it is pointed out that the gene is not capable of doing anything, it can't act by itself. It is individual organisms that act, and only through them can genes have any meaning at all. The whole theory that the genes are the basic units of biology is a fundamental misunderstanding.

But the theory of the selfish gene has a life of its own. If genes and reproduction are the chief purpose of everything, one can easily think up explanations for all kinds of social inequality. Entire scientific disciplines have formed which live well on explaining any human quality as an adaptation controlled by the genes.

Even ignoring the ad hominem that gene-centered biologists have ideological motives, this is unorthodox, which doesn't prove Falck wrong, but means that his arrogance is unjustified. You can't dismiss gene-centrism as if it were a refuted fringe branch of biology. That indicates ignorance, and proves the need for writers like Vassnes to better explain mainstream biology to a Norwegian audience.

Other reactions to Vassnes have been similarly confused. Aftenposten's Arnhild Skre believes that Vassnes' book justifies shoplifting among teenage girls, ("newly installed hormones force them to become gatherers"). Bergens Tidende's Trine Eilertsen believes that if there are statistical differences between men and women, we can deduce from this what individual men and women are like, which we obviously can't so there must not be any differences. (Here's a good explanation of why this is illogical.) And when Vassnes argues that men are more likely to mistreat children than women, Per Asbjørn Risnes feels personally accused of being a violent dad.

I suppose this is to be expected, since Vassnes is introducing a, by Norwegian standards, strange new branch of biology. But there's no excuse for being ignorant about basic science. Consider this recent exchange on Dagbladet's opinion pages. Vassnes argues that the scientific community is not a modern priesthood, because it relies on self-correcting mechanisms.

The fact that science has such a built in form of self-criticism, and that no scientific "truths" or data are individual, but collective, makes the common argument that scientists too are "people" .. uninteresting. What individual scientists believe is of little importance for the accumulated, systematic increase of knowledge science represents. Of course scientists are people, but their personal views are filtered out through the collective scientific process.

From this, Kjetil Rommetveit at the Center for Science Theory at the University of Bergen concludes that everything the scientific community says is assumed to be correct, which makes it "strikingly like" a medieval priesthood after all, and asks for more journalism that "problematizes the relationship between science and its surroundings". Thorvald Sirnes, also at the University of Bergen, calls Vassnes an authoritarian who plays down the contributions of individual scientists in favor of a collective iron cage, and he warns against the increasing power of science over society.

The confusion is subtle: If we pretend that there are only two parties involved, scientists and society, then scientists certainly can be an arrogant priesthood we must keep in check. But there's a third factor: Science itself. The relationship between scientists, society and science is not difficult to understand. Science is a contract, an agreement among scientists, and between scientists and society, about what we can expect from a scientific theory. In short, the theory must be testable, and it must fit empirical evidence. If not, it's bad science.

This contract governs the relationship between scientists and society. Society can not be expected to understand all scientific theories, but it can be expected to understand the scientific method, which scientists must obey. The problem of verifying everything the scientists believe is thus reduced to the much simpler problem of verifying that the scientists obey the scientific method. This gives us a way to identify dogmatism, and confidence that whatever faulty consensus scientists reach today is likely to be challenged by other scientists tomorrow.

The relationship is similar to that between the people, the government and the law. The law is the people's guarantee that the government doesn't misbehave, and that we'll know when it does. Science is society's guarantee that scientists don't misbehave, and that we'll know when they do.

If the scientific method is a new and controversial topic in Norway, and if mainstream science journalists think of evolutionary biology as just an excuse to oppress women, then we do need more good popular science writers. Bjørn Vassnes appears to be one of them.

This issue is presently discussed in Sweden. Annica Dahlström, an athorithy in brain research have recently been censored because her work shows differences between women and men. An editorial in Dagens Nyheter is worth reading.
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=577&a=377356
Why is this at all discussed? Mammals have allways behaved like this. Laws of nature cannot be changed by junk science and/or political correctness.

Thank you for focusing attention on this issue. I believe that there is a difference between political identities/rights and the study of scientific categories. The two should not be confused. Even if there are brain differences between men and women (and it seems ever more likely that there are), the social implications of such differences are always subject to ethical considerations and political negotiations. To acknowledge biological fact is not to reject social parity between the sexes.

Wow, what a revolutionary thought, men and women are biologically different.

Don't mention that at Harvard, tho, might cause vapors in some of the women.

---

OT: It's going down, Americans will not pay for this, via LGF:

A scandal about the sexual abuse of Congolese women and children by U.N. officials and peacekeepers intensified Friday with the broadcast of explicit pictures of a French U.N. worker and Congolese girls and his claim that there was a network of pedophiles at the U.N. mission in Congo....

I am glad you have taken the work to translate this strange spectacle in the Norwegian media, Bjørn. So-called science journalists don't understsnd even the most basic science, and are rejecting statistics as heresy. This is the leftist equivalent to creationism (wasn't Aftenposten a right-leaning newspaper in the late Jurassic or thereabouts?).

Perhaps the most fundamental error of the critics of gene-centric biology is overlooking something Kant made very clear: you can't go from an is to an ought. If people are inclined towards unethical behaviour like violence and rape (and you don't have to see much of the world to conclude this is very likely) by our genes, that doesn't justify it ethically. Most of the project of civilisation has been to temper some of the most unfortunate sides of our nature.

Whether those negative qualities are due to inherited sin or inherited genes, it doesn't make it more right to kill, steal or rape. But if our genes give us such negative traits, it is better to know about it.

Thirty years ago I made a similar comment at a cocktail party that was made up of mostly professorial types (the best man at my wedding was my wife's philosophy professor). Well, you would have thought that I'd put the puppies and kittens in a blender!

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that for any one skill that women are distributed on a bell curve; and that for the same skill men are distributed on a bell curve.

Now if you overlay the curves one or the other will probably be shifted right (better) by 5%-10%. For some skills the men will be to the right, for others women will be. SO WHAT!!!????!!

This is not a competition in the same way sports is where only the top of the top count. From what I've seen there is approximately a 10% performance gap in objective sports between men and women (faster, stronger, etc.) All that means is that the best women can't beat the best men, BUT, they can beat the crap out of MOST men!!

Now in sports that matters, in life it doesn't because given the huge numbers in play the difference isn't particularly significant. Desire more than makes up for this in both genders. Pure genetic ability is only one small factor.

Apparently women have the edge in language skills, I haven't seen an impact among male authors, have you?

Scientifically, this is probably interesting. But, culturally it doesn't matter. The relegation of women to lower statuses was never about ability, it was about power. Since ALL power is ultimately physical, men tended to prevail.

Yes I recently told my wife that women have a useful life and shouod be depreciated like other assets. Thereafter I slept on the sofa for a week. :-) The dog still likes me, but he, according to my wife, has no taste.

That the brains of men and women are operationally different shouldn’t come as a surprise really. The evidence for this is overwhelming, even though it is not a particularly popular subject at cocktail parties. In fact, over the years many people have observed that men and women have differing organs, statures and placements of hair on their bodies. Given that our physiques are so different, how likely is it that our brains would function exactly the same?

I am very comfortable saying that men and women have brains that are better suited to different tasks. Interestingly though, I am a bit concerned with how this information is being presented and how it might wind up being used.

First, I think it is inappropriate for the president of Harvard University to excuse the lack of women scientists in that institution to only the biological differences between the sexes. Women have been culturally dissuaded from science and math and politics and other male dominated endeavors, for the entirety of human existence, with the exception of the last few decades. I would argue that this cultural hangover has a lot more to do with the lack of women in the sciences than do any biological differences. For example, when my father went to West Point there were no women in that institution at all. Now however, women are being accepted and make up about 25% of the student population. Furthermore the women today are, on average, able to do more push ups than the men of my fathers graduating class.

So my concern is that this information, although factual, will be used to excuse the sexual disparity in many institutions and endeavors. I think women should be encouraged to join the sciences in particular because this is an area where people who think differently and approach problems differently are highly valuable.

FC

Shades of Galileo and the Inquisition.

"Core beliefs" are not necessarily what the scientific community really thinks, but that which is convenient for people in charge to want to be so.

Vassnes threatens people who have made a very nice living - and gained considerable political power- buy claiming that all of their perceived problems are the result of environment. Of course, they now have to control that environment to rectify said ills.

It's the old "nature vs nurture" argument, and I'm not sure where it will lead, except to say that some womyn in the herstory departments and "gender equality" studies may be out of a job.

Heh.

He best be wearing fire retardant clothing lest he be burned as a warlock.

Jan Haugland wrote: "This is the leftist equivalent to creationism..."

Maybe it is. But it is worth to mention, like Vassnes does, this:

"Close to three years ago Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" was published in Norwegian for the first time (as "Det egoistiske genet". Internationally this is considered as one of the most important books of the last century, a book that has not only left deep traces in everyday conversation, but also has been a central contribution to making biology the most important research field of today. In Norway it was reviewed only in [two newspapers,] Morgenbladet and KK [Klassekampen, my note].

Last year Peter Atkins’ ”Galileos finger” [same name in English] was published in Norwegian, perhaps the best popular science presentation of the most central ideas in science ever. Reviews in Norwegian newspapers (except KK) has been impossible to find".

From this I conclude:

a. Vassnes does certainly have a streak of arrogance on behalf of biology and on behalf of his favourite authors.

b. The only newspapers that Vassnes finds to have reviewed the mentioned books are Morgenbladet (something of a leftie culture elite newspaper) and Klassekampen (far left newspaper).

Political correctness is not shared by all the left. And all political correctness is not leftist.

Øyvind

Øyvind: Political correctness is not shared by all the left. And all political correctness is not leftist.

Yes, and Vassnes is a regular science contributor to Klassekampen, which probably means that he's a leftist himself. So this isn't a right-left issue.

But there is a tendency for the left to confuse legal equality with genetic equality, to argue that everyone should have the same rights, regardless of sex or race, because we're all the same. That makes science that finds or looks for differences a political threat. In a way it is, because it undermines policies that take genetic equality for granted, but it's not a threat to legal equality itself. All you have to do is found it in something more permanent than assumptions about a field of science where there's so much left to explore. But a lot of prestige has been invested in genetic equality, so it's easier to keep fighting.

"But there is a tendency for the left to confuse legal equality with genetic equality, to argue that everyone should have the same rights, regardless of sex or race, because we're all the same".

Agreed. This tendency does definitely exist, it is an annoying variant of political correctness. Sadly, it is not limited to the left, though.

"That makes science that finds or looks for differences a political threat. In a way it is, because it undermines policies that take genetic equality for granted, but it's not a threat to legal equality itself".

True. And there is a lot of prestige invested in this at various campuses, some of it of a political character, much of it on an academical level. In other words, a paradigm change should maybe come along soon...

Øyvind

Excerpted from an article at CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/14/gender.brain/index.html

(CNN) --
* * *
Michael Gurian, psychologist and author of "What Could He Be Thinking?". He believes there are about a hundred structural differences that have been identified between the male and female brain.

"Men, because we tend to compartmentalize our communication into a smaller part of the brain, we tend to be better at getting right to the issue," he said.

"The more female brain (will) gather a lot of material, gather a lot of information, feel a lot, hear a lot, sense a lot," he said.
* * *
To find out why these differences exist, scientists have taken voyages deep inside the gray matter using MRI scans.

The scans show that in most women, the corpus callosum area, which handles communication between the brain's two "hemispheres", is larger. In layman's terms, it means that the two sides of the female brain "talk" better to each other -- which could explain why studies show women tend to multi-task better. On the other hand, the scans show men tend to move information more easily within each hemisphere.

It all boils down to genes, according to Dr. Marianne Legato Partnership for Gender Specific Medicine Columbia University.

Women are born with two X chromosomes, and men with an X and a Y. "And on that Y chromosome are at least 21 unique genes unique to males which control many of the body's operations down to the level of the cells," Dr Legato said.
* * *
Unfortunately it doesn't explain why some men leave the toilet seat up, or some women can't take out the garbage.

Bjorn & Oyvind,

There is also a philosophical / religious component to this argument...."But there is a tendency for the left to confuse legal equality with genetic equality, to argue that everyone should have the same rights, regardless of sex or race, because we're all the same".

In the terms of the US Declaration of Independence..."All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator...."

Now, on a physical level this is an absurdity. It's obvious that all people are NOT created equal, therefore, to have any meaning there must be an internal component of equality which was "endowed by their creator".

If you try and stay purely on the "rationale scientific" side of the discussion legal equality becomes questionable. So, if you don't want to get into the philosophy/religious discussion you are left with these rather bizzare claims of actual sameness which is, according to Bjorn's apt phrase, the lefts tendency to confuse legality and biology.

To posit a viable legal theory of equality you have to move out of biology into philosophy and religion. This is an area that many on the left fear to tread cause it opens up alternatives to atheism that, IMHO, they are ill-equipped to deal with.

Alan C well said

Oh, there are atheists in various political camps. Personally I do not consider myself one of them, but I am on the left. Thankfully, you also mention philosophy - which makes me join in with Herbie on this one: Well said.

Is it not boring when we all agree?

Alan C: To posit a viable legal theory of equality you have to move out of biology into philosophy and religion.

I didn't mean that legal equality should be postulated - that ground is even shakier than biological equality. What happens if you say that all people should have equal rights because God said so, and then you stop believing in God? Or what if I tell you that my god says that my race should rule the world? How will an observer tell which of us are right, when neither of us have any arguments beyond "God said so"?

The only solid argument for equality is that it leads to something we believe is good, (general wellbeing, wealth, etc). Does it? Religion and abstract philosophy aren't able to answer that. The answer is down here on earth.

Biology is part of that answer. If you think biology is irrelevant for legal equality then you're just taking your beliefs for granted. Why do animals not have the same rights as we do? Because they're too different from us. They're not very intelligent, probably not conscious, are unable to live up to the responsibilities that comes along with human rights. Human rights were made specifically for humans - they just don't make sense for other animals.

And what about children? Should they have the same rights and responsibilities as adults? Of course not, because they're unable to deal with those responsibilities. Human rights were made specifically for adult humans - they wouldn't work for children.

The more we narrow it down, the more relevant biology becomes. Human adults have different rights from children and animals because they are different. Human rights don't work with generic entities, they require individuals who behave within a certain set of parameters.

The point is that this has nothing to do with biological equality. We don't have to be equal to have the same rights, we just have to be essentially alike.

I am a practicing agnostic (and I need all the practice I can get).

The point I'm trying to make is NOT that introducing philosophy / religion (is that not a good agnostic construct or what?) makes this discussion easier. It in fact makes it harder for the reasons that you mention and then some. BUT, I think that it is necessary.

The discussion of legal equality must be primarily and pragmatically philosophic. Otherwise, you wind up with good old might makes right no matter how you dress it up. I'm assuming that might makes right can be taken off the table, okay?

There is a history in all societies of informal rules serving as the organizing principles. Basically these serve through shame to coerce people to behave in traditionally accepted ways. As long as there is a homogeneity of thought this works all right.

This is most of all there was/is in most tribal cultures. Added to that over time were religious laws that were gaurded by the priestly class and eventually written down. As Bjorn has pointed out, the rationale can be summed up as "because god said so".

Now, skipping blithely over several thousand years of history, we come to the present situation where not only are the old informal rules breaking down; so are the religious institutions that provided the foundation for so much of Western civilization. Well, as presented in the main post; Science can be viewed as the new religion and scientists as the new priesthood. Unfortunately it doesn't work as a means to regulate society. The law in "the rule of law" isn't the law of gravity or any other physical law.

The problem is that whereas science used to try and define why and how the world worked, due to advances it has reached the point where defining what is happening is the best it can do (and let's not even start down the road to Quantum Mechanics!).

Now, societal and individual relationships have to be governed by why and how, not what. Defining the fact that some people murder other people doesn't give you much of a base on which to outlaw murder. You have to decide why it is wrong and how to deal with it to construct a legal system that works. There are no equivalents to immutable physical laws waiting to be discovered in the realm of human relationships.

Once you ask WHY (why SHOULD women be treated equally?) you need to have some philosophical framework, religious or not, to support you. Biology won't do even if it might help add a few details. That's the discussion that has to continue and the one that various folks can't deal with.

Øyvind, it would be worth noting that the two only newspapers to review Dawkins in Norway were left (Morgenbladet) and extreme left (Klassekampen), if it wasn't for the fact that Norway doesn't have any mainstream right-of-center newspapers. KK and Morgenbladet deserves credit for being at least awake to what is going on in the world.

Norway's mainstream press is deaf, dumb and blind to anything more intellectually straining than Big Brother and Idol.

Here is KK on Dawkins, a reasonably balanced commentary: http://www.klassekampen.no/Arkivsamling/Arkiv/2002/Oktober/30/151609

Jan:

Saying that Norway has no right-wing newspapers is something I leave for people, like yourself, that are so rightwing that they actually believe this.

Of course we could discuss where the centre in Norwegian politics is. It is obviously not the same place as the centre in American politics. That does not make Aftenposten left-of-centre, and it does not make VG left-of-centre.

The usual whining about how left-wing all the newspapers are sounds much like paranoia to me. "Everyone is against us. Boohoo". In fact, it is the same illness found at the extreme left in Norway: "All the newspapers are right-wing". Actually, those people would use Big Brother and Idol as an example as well.

And to quote a classic objectivist reply to them: If you are not happy with the newspapers - start one yourself.

Øyvind

Thoughts for the day:

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation?

Is there another word for synonym?

What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?

Why do they lock gas station bathrooms? Are they afraid someone will clean them?

If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

If the police arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent?

Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

How do they get deer to cross the road only at those yellow road signs?

One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

How is it possible to have a civil war?

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

> > 29. Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have "S" in it?

Øyvind,

One day you have to inform me how you get an internet connection in the parallell reality where you live. ;-)

I am sure communists considers the press right-oriented. They hardly receive get 2% of the vote... In Norway we have a charming political consensus that social-democracy is good. I am sympathetic to this view, since it works. Thus the "center" of Norwegian politics, maybe represented somwhere between the Christian Democrats (Krf) and the Centre-democrats (Sp) would make all utterings sympathetic to the Conservatives (Høyre) and the Progress Party (Frp) right-of-center.

Even if you accept that view, the press is radically left. An Opinion poll in 2003 demonstrated that I am right. If journalists were representative of the Norwegian people, Labour (Ap), Socialist Left (SV) and the communists (RV) would have 135 of 165 representatives in our parliament, giving the left power to even amend the constitution. This is radically at odds with the average voter (we do, after all, have a centre-right government). So, consider your fact-void utterances refuted.

It gets even worse if we lift our eyes from the local playground. On international affairs, there is a near-total consensus that Americans (especially Bush) are evil and ignorant, that Israel can be compared to the Nazi government, and that Arafat was a heroic freedom fighter.

On the issue of Iraq, which pretty well defines the left-right split on international affairs, Norway was pretty solidly in the French camp, even as we made some sounds to avoid offending the US. Realpolitik dictated that our government went as far as it could towards the US without rising the ire of the voters. The press, of course, was furious. Luckily, no Norwegian soldier has been killed in Iraq. If that happened, there would be hell to pay.

In Norway, there is no public debate on whether the United Nations is a wholly positive force in the world. Oil-for-food, Rwanda, Darfur, rape scandals, etc, etc had no effect on this conviction. School children in Norway are taught to venerate, if not worship, the UN, and hard critical facts do not register in the press landscape.

Norwegian school children also learn that the west's evil greed is the sole cause of suffering and poverty in the third world, and not the wars, corruption and despotism in these countries. On this, there may be some waking up. Mugabe in Zimbabwe managed to offend the sensibilities of even the BBC, who seem to be realigning itself with reality on Africa, and then the Norwegian press follows.

There can be no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the Norwegian press is strongly leftist.

Jan really well said

First of all: Your description of reality stuns me. Bjørn himself for instance summed up what media wrote about Arafat, and it was not as biased and bad as certain rightwingers dreamt it should be. I am sure you can go surfing yourself and draw pretty much the same conclusions. Well, you should be able to anyway.

Bush might be made fun of (and there is lots of silly views on him out there), but I know loads of Norwegians concervatives that laugh of him too, including a Carl I Hagen-fan who has lived in the States... so that is hardly a way of looking at party politics, now it is? And thirdly, Israel "compared to a Nazi government"?

I did a tiny search on the words "Israel" and "Nazi" on Kvasirs news webpage. What came up? Well, one readers letter to a newspaper - a rightwinger complaining about media bias - one interview with Hilde Henriksen Waage where she mentions that she has been called Nazi, and - yeah... one article about the fuzz Chris Reddys created when he put a swastika in the names of Israel and the States.

Do you consider holywar.org as a mainstream Norwegian newspaper? Then perhaps you are right. Otherwise your claims are quite laughable. Hint: Being critical to Israel is not "comparing it to a Nazi government".

It is true that many journalists are leftists. But clearly you are confusing journalists (in one - that is ONE - poll, and you do know that old truth about statistics, do you not?) with media. Media is more than journalists.

I would dare say that editors might play a role, would not you? Do you think all editors in mainstream Norwegian media is too? You might consider taking a look at rightwing hate object number one - our national broadcasting company... NRK.

Guy in a charge? Hint: He is not a member of Labour.

Then you might want to take a look at which voices are heard in the media? Which parties gets the most attention? Hint: There has been done research on that field, too.

Oh, and when it comes to the Iraq war... you do know who is in the government in France, right? Hint: It is not a proclaimed social democrat, like... say... Tony Blair.

So, reducing that to a discussion of left-right says more about using American politics as a standard than anything else.

Your views on the media is so typical - poor me, poor me, I am being politically harassed, and adding the schools to the equation does not make it much better. Once more you are perfectly in line with the commies.

And when it comes to the UN - well, do you even READ Norwegian media? Or do you just DREAM about it? Here is a couple of press bureau releases and a couple of articles I found in Aftenposten:

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/4511009.html
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/4490636.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article963119.ece
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/irak/article917421.ece

And to add a couple from Dagens Næringsliv, a newspapers French commies would call "bourgeois", where there are also quite few lefties to be found:

http://www.dn.no/forsiden/utenriks/article431068.ece
http://www.dn.no/forsiden/kommentarer/article388400.ece

It wasn't exactly hard work digging up those, you know.

Just because the point of view of Norwegian media is not exactly like whatever American blogs you frequent, it does not mean what you claim.

Internet is delivered by some phone company, by the way.

Øyvind

Øyvind,

My point was exactly that we hardly have a right wing in Norway, when it comes to international issues. DN is nominally rightist in some issues, so is Aftenposten and VG. All are solidly left on security and international issues. Thank you for finding evidence supporting my position.

I find it amusing you find singular examples to disprove a general trend, while you discount statistics. Yes, Mark Twain has given people who want to discount scientific facts in favour of anecdotes a perfect excuse.

The NRK boss is from the conservatives, Norway's right-leaning social democratic party. So? If he tried to exercise editorial control in political coverage, the journalist unions would have him for breakfast.

PS: Carl I Hagen is a populist and not really right-wing. He proposes higher public spending; hardly conservative economic policy. But he is probably the most pro-US leading politician we have, but he also know which way the local wind blows.

Jan Haugland: "My point was exactly that we hardly have a right wing in Norway, when it comes to international issues. DN is nominally rightist in some issues, so is Aftenposten and VG. All are solidly left on security and international issues."

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It seems to me you are complaining about the lack of atlanticist neoconservatives in Norway, which certainly is true, but that's a fairly specific position within the broad field of right-wing thought.

It would help if you could explain what you consider to be "right-wing" and "left-wing".

Political correctness and religion should not be allowed to influence science or scientific truths. Differences in cognitive skills between the sexes should not be construed as weaknesses - but rather just 'differences per se' . Political Correctness like its counter-part Religious bigotry operates independent of common sense and rationality.

"It would help if you could explain what you consider to be "right-wing" and "left-wing". "
Faklan,
Considering the diverse and often conflicting views of those who call themselves right-wing [or left], depending on the social environment in which they've been developed, it seems somewhat pointless to ask such a questions.
I'm sure you can see that on this forum. Some right-wingers may hold views that would be considered left-wing elsewhere and vice versa.

Kim Sook-Im,
Very true. In Australia the department I work for is committed to provided recruitment based on equal merit, with allowances made for the disabled etc.. not in terms of being able to do the job, but in regards to reducing the factors that disadvantage them. We don't know biology to tell us these people are not equal, if they were then EO policies would be needless. I don't see why this should be problem for people to accept that women aren't equal to men in terms of sameness.

AlanC
"Now, on a physical level this is an absurdity. It's obvious that all people are NOT created equal, therefore, to have any meaning there must be an internal component of equality which was "endowed by their creator".

While such internal components of equality remain the subject of fantasy, the law can serve as a leveler. Obviously such assumptions of equality in regards to the physical and mental characteristics of a population are absurd, however through legislation it can be guaranteed that individuals are treated with some semblance of equality.

Laws requiring that all applicants in a recruitment process be judged according to same criteria, laws dictating that millionares and bums require to pass the same proofs of evidence in court when charged with crimes etc.. A metaphysical equality can be established in this way, not as an appeal to superstition but through an impartial and uncorrupted judiciary and as a part of good governance in general.

"If you try and stay purely on the "rationale scientific" side of the discussion legal equality becomes questionable."

Why? Legal Equality is constructed on the basis that the physical differences of individuals have no bearing upon their rights in the eyes of the law. Most Legal principles in this are hardly dependant upon the latest scientific "truth".
As you say Bizzare claims of actual equality can arise from confusing concepts of legality and biology, but this certainly doesn't mean that philosophy is going to add anything to the debate. Afterall you've already implied that legal equality and biology are separate entities, why introduce a third. Australia (and many other countries) have had at much of its history a strict division between those who create laws, those who interpret and enforce the laws, and religious mystics. Hardly convincing evidence that today's political/legal rights and priviliges can result solely from the adherence to religious or philosophical truths.

Conclusion, since many difference nations postulate concepts of legal equality, and only a prominent few do so for religious reasons.
I'm uncertain how regarding all people as being equal in the eyes of the law (in terms of rights, processes) irrespective of wealth & physique would lead to this kind of might is right approach AlanC prostulated.

"The problem is that whereas science used to try and define why and how the world worked, due to advances it has reached the point where defining what is happening is the best it can do (and let's not even start down the road to Quantum Mechanics!)."
Wasn't such a claim made during the 19ths and earlier? It is as true now, as it was then.
"Defining the fact that some people murder other people doesn't give you much of a base on which to outlaw murder"
Aside from the fact that its an extremely undesireable type of behaviour. We could try and basing a legal system upon a system of religious or absolute morals, but it would simply would not work. People have different ideas about what is wrong, and what's not, relative to their perspective and life experiences. And many areas which need legal intervention would be ignored.
What moral is offended when one fails to stop at a stop sign, or fails to indicate when changing lanes, or when someone consistently places their bin out incorrectly?
"There are no equivalents to immutable physical laws waiting to be discovered in the realm of human relationships."
Are you saying that human interacts can not be scientifically studied? I guess Hayek, Skinner and all those from differing fields who've tried to do just that must all have been wrong.
Many old institutions have been collasping world wide. In Australia union membership has fallen to all time lows, as people cease relating to the concept of collectivist action. Some of those things which have led to the conditions existing today, really have no more part to play, except as hinderances to either current conditions or the ideals of future development.

David,

I'm afraid that you are in violent agreement with me.
"Why? Legal Equality is constructed on the basis that the physical differences of individuals have no bearing upon their rights in the eyes of the law. Most Legal principles in this are hardly dependant upon the latest scientific "truth".

Substitute Philosophical for Legal and you are repeating what I said.

I think where you go a bit astray is with...."We could try and basing a legal system upon a system of religious or absolute morals, but it would simply would not work. People have different ideas about what is wrong, and what's not, relative to their perspective and life experiences. And many areas which need legal intervention would be ignored."

You seem to be positing a legal structure outside a philosophical construct when in fact a legal structure is nothing BUT such a construct. People will not agree to a legal structure that does not relate to their perspective and experiences of their own free will. Such a structure would have to be forced upon them, the old might makes right or the "golden rule" (he who has the gold makes the rules).

The alternative to MMR is to construct a philosophical context which will persuade people to accept it as a suitable framework in which to develop a legal structure.

Your "Legal Equality is constructed on the basis that the physical differences of individuals have no bearing upon their rights in the eyes of the law." is circular LE is constructed on the eyes of the law. Many people believe that the proper context for your statement is "...the eyes of God (Allah, Jehovah, Gaia, etc.) That at least removes the circularity though it reintroduces meta-physics. But, without some recourse to the unknowable you are left with Might makes Right.
This is an example of Goedel's theorem where any sufficiently complex system has to contain the ability to ask questions that the system cannot answer. THAT'S where philosophy / religion / meta-physics has to come into the discussion; Why is murder wrong? You didn't say.

AlanC: This is an example of Goedel's theorem where any sufficiently complex system has to contain the ability to ask questions that the system cannot answer. THAT'S where philosophy / religion / meta-physics has to come into the discussion; Why is murder wrong? You didn't say.

Hm, that's interesting. Would you care to expand on that? Are you saying that there's an analogy between Goedel's theorem (which I don't fully understand) and metaphysics, or that it applies directly? How?

Bjorn,

It's been a looooonnnnggg time since I studied Goedel so I apologise in advance to the old guy.

Yes, I am using it as an analogy in a way.

For example in Mathematics the common integer based system contains the question "What is the square root of negative 1?" That cannot be answered with constructs allowed within the system. There are all kinds of questions like this in any branch of Math or Physics. I used to know all the proper terms etc. but that was all 30+ years ago.

Now, with regard to social systems / political systems / legal systems there are questions that cannot be answered by recourse to rational or logical argument. In any logical argument there are a set of assumptions on which all else is based. BUT, within the system there is no way to question or "rationalize" those assumptions so you must step outside the box to resolve those. That is where metaphysics or religion or philosophy come in.

This is one of the reasons that I consider myself to be agnostic. If you state categorically that there is nothing outside of mankind that has a role in determining proper behavior or rights (see the US Declaration "...endowed by our Creator...") then on what basis can you argue against the "law of the jungle" or "might makes right"? Or, as I put it before, why is murder wrong?

Much of our law seems based on original religious texts such as the 10 Commandments. Strip off the explicitly religious ones ( no other God, etc.) and you are left with things like Thou shall not murder. There's my why answered....God says so.
However, while that makes a nice axiom it doesn't much result from a logical process. But then, isn't that true of all axioms? Their truth or origin lies outside the logical construct in the same way the the square root of negative 1 lies outside the system of integers.

So, my conclusion, is that there has to be a philosophical/religious foundation that sets the axioms on which the logic of the social/legal system rests and this foundation is outside the logic of the social system.

Jan wrote: "All are solidly left on security and international issues".

If you look into the views of Aftenposten, for instance, on the Iraq war or on Israel, I would say they are in line with for example French concervatives.

It seems to me that you think that issues like these are divided alongst left-right political lines, when they are not. The reason seems to be that you use American politics as the standard for what is "left" and what is "right". Luckily, the American standard does not apply to Europe.

Adding to this, of course, is the fact that you also disregard numerous American concervatives that have "leftist" views on for instance Iraq in your attempt to make every Norwegian newspaper leftist.

And by the way, we were discussing science and science coverage here, and not international politics, and as even you have agreed to now:
"DN is nominally rightist in some issues, so is Aftenposten and VG".

Do I "discount statistics"`I ask questions about one poll, and furthermore to your use of it. I also question your claims that Norwegian newspapers have disregarded trouble in the UN, and would like for you to provide statistics for this, if your claim is that I disregard statistics in that case.

David,Cairns, Australia,

In both our earlier posts on 02/15/2005 I wrote:

" Political Correctness like its counter-part Religious bigotry operates independent of common sense and rationality." and you responded thus:

" In Australia the department I work for is committed to provided recruitment based on equal merit, with allowances made for the disabled etc.. not in terms of being able to do the job, but in regards to reducing the factors that disadvantage them..We don't know biology to tell us these people are not equal, if they were then EO ....."

I would like to temper both our statements. Although political correctness may not always operate on common sense or rationality, I should quickly point out that they are motivated by a sense of fair play and more importantly COMPASSION and perhaps even altruism. This attribute of compassion is unique to the human species and which is what sets us above the turmoil of raw biological competition. This is the extra spark within our species that give us the dimension of spirituality. I hope ex-Christian is taking note ! LOL. I had wanted him to meditate on Loving Kindness --->

http://www.buddhanet.net/metta.htm

( o.k. I'm shamelessly trying to influence / deprogram him ..giggle, chuckle...LOL )

Sister Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim
Sufi-Buddhist Mystic
الصّوفيّ البوذيّ لصوفيّ المسلم

The president of Harvard may be forced to resign for some comments in connection with women in the sciences. It is important to look at what he said to understand why his supporters and his critics alike are trying to change the record.

Summers clearly said that he believes female IQ’s are lower than male, but it is what he went on to say about elite physicists that is the problem. He is comparing them not with women alone but with the general population when he says that their scores fall 3 ½ - 4 standard deviations above the mean. The problem is that white physics professors at Harvard are overwhelmingly of Germanic or Scandinavian origin, even when they are Jewish. The president of Harvard, in trying to prove the biological inferiority of a group, actually presented evidence for the superiority of the Nordic races.

So his supporters distract the crowd with high and mighty outrage at a feminist show trial and an implicit promise to all white men that they will be classed as superior (read: Nordic) and all women as inferior (read: non-Nordic) as they change the record to make all biological difference he presented appear to be sexual.

Girls in the racially homogeneous island nations of Iceland and Japan score as well as or better than boys on math tests. These countries also have uniform school systems, so that any two test-takers are probably more closely matched by preparation and race than anywhere else in the world. If the Harvard Corporation wants to proceed with this, they’ll have to sift out the Celt from the Slav and the German from the Semite to truly control for race. If they want to do this, let them proceed.

Free Larry Summers. But don't be mistaken about what the stakes are.

Adrienne David is mistaken. Larry Summers said no such thing.

Read it for yourself....
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Adrienne and AlanC,

I think we give too much credence to IQ scores. One can be book-smart and pretty street-dumb LOL.

Parental expectations and a host of socio-cultural factors also influence the scholastic performance of both genders. In many asian countries girls currently vie to excell just as fiercely as boys.

Adrienne David: The president of Harvard, in trying to prove the biological inferiority of a group, actually presented evidence for the superiority of the Nordic races.

For someone so concerned about what Summers actually said, you provide few sources (recount: none!) to back your Nordic superiority claim. As a white, Nordic male, I was so looking forward to hearing evidence of my superiority, but on reading Summers' speech I found none. Or perhaps the evidence was there, but I'm not smart enough to find it. Perhaps it would help if I also had blonde hair, and my verbs at the end of sentences began putting, making me a true Aryan?

Girls in the racially homogeneous island nations of Iceland and Japan score as well as or better than boys on math tests.

Source? Is this true also at the top end of the curve? That is, if you look at the top 1% or top 0.1%, how is the distribution between girls and boys? If it's equal, and remains so over time, (from elementary school to university), that's an indication that a better school system could make women equally qualified to be top physicists. I expect you to present numbers on that, though. Also: Why do you emphasize that these countries are "racially homogenous"? Are you saying that while men and women are equally distributed for every ability, people of different races aren't?

Kim Sook-Im: I think we give too much credence to IQ scores. One can be book-smart and pretty street-dumb LOL.

IQ is a voodoo number. A good indicator of certain abilities (mathematics, logic, abstract thinking), but one single scale is insufficient to be meaningfully applied to professions that require widely different, specialized abilities. It's most interesting feature is perhaps the Flynn effect, (unexplained last I heard), the gradual world-wide increase in average IQ scores.

Street-smart is even more of a voodoo number, btw. ;)

"The president of Harvard, in trying to prove the biological inferiority of a group, actually presented evidence for the superiority of the Nordic races."

well, the Jews and Asians was superior last time I heard about it. I am an average bastard myself, what we call a "kjøter" in Norwegian. with a little bit of Finns blood and some bloodline stemming from the notorious descendant's of Kain. Anyway, what use is IQ if people with lots of it, doesn't use it? What a radical Norwegian author called the syndrome of "love of the professor" otherwise known as "professor love".

"Flynn effect: the gradual world-wide increase in average IQ scores."

Certainly a proof to me that IQ is a dubious parameter!

njet: Certainly a proof to me that IQ is a dubious parameter!

The number itself doesn't mean much, but what it indirectly measures is real. Say there's one big factor that influences general intelligence - then whatever that is IQ probably measures a part of it. So the fact that IQ increases tells us that we are getting smarter in some way. The question is why. Education has been ruled out, I think. Improved living conditions and cultural change are better candidates.

Homo sapiens sapiensis......hmmm man the very wise ...really? LOL...well for all the abstract thinking and logic etc...we as a species certainly are doing a fine job..or are we? Well it depends on what kind of moral imperative we are looking at ! Read on --->

http://animalsrighttolifewebsite.com/

http://animalsrighttolifewebsite.com/world%20war%20on%20animals1.htm

http://animalsrighttolifewebsite.com/end_war_on_animals.htm

http://animalsrighttolifewebsite.com/the_challenge.htm

http://animalsrighttolifewebsite.com/know_this.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/metta.htm

What was all that hoopla about I.Q. again ??? LOL

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
Non Mensa Member
( and still trying to get ex-Christian to become a bad muslim tee heeeee)

عالم صوفيّ البوذيّ
佛教穆斯林科學家

ooopsie,

forgot one more link for your perusal:

----> http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Religion/religionanimals.html#christ

Björn. I have been reading the writings of mr. vassnes for a few years, and I must say that I am impressed by his stamina, and that I also feel some sort of sympathy for his cause. Especially I agree with you that the examples you quote confusing normative statements with science are grim. However, these can partly be explained, but not be excused, by the fact that "nature" and what is natural has a strong imperative in the modern dicourse. By merely stating "it is natural for men to masturbate" one is usually interpreted as saying that we should.

The problem with Vassnes and many of the biologists he quotes (at least in his newspaper-articles) is that their science is poor, simplistic and specualtive. Especially problematic is their lack of understanding of the complexities in the interrelationships between the gene, other genes, environment and phenotype. Usually they resort to simple cause-effect relations, especially when published in newspapers. "the gay gene", "the suicidegene" and so on.

The gender study people are on thin ice in this debate, for sure, but it is important to remember that in the developmental history of the human species, culture has been an intrinsic element for thousands of years and it is part of what is "natural" for us as well.
Björn Ottar

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1535

Progressive Reaction: Larry Summers in Scandinavia., February 20, 2005 03:14 PM

Bjørn Stærk has a fascinating report on the arrival of sociobiology in Norway....

Progressive Reaction: Larry Summers in Scandinavia., February 22, 2005 02:38 PM

Bjørn Stærk has a fascinating report on the arrival of sociobiology in Norway....