Note from the channeler: recently I said to Ashtar: "I know that you can be in multiple places at once, and sometimes you move to end conversations with me that have run their course.

Still, you must be very busy, and you always make time for me and are always centered and present. You never hurry me up or seem stressed or are in a rush. How do you do that?"
Ashtar responded: "Just because I am very busy, does not mean that I have to act or feel very busy."
On to Hakann's message:

My dearest brothers and sisters,

This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.

Often, the modern American left claims that some position they like is supported by science, and therefore it is right, and anyone who disagrees is anti-science. Or they say that there is no evidence for a certain position that the left happens to dislike.

These arguments might seem convincing at first glance, but ultimately aren't logical.

First of all, in science, things are rarely definitively settled. Disagreement and discussion isn't anti-science, it's actually part of the scientific process. So people who say "the science is settled, shut up, don't question it" are actually anti-science people.

Secondly, the left sometimes chooses their data set or their process in a way that skews the results. For example, some people have concerns that illegal immigrants from quite different cultures commit more crimes. But if you're an American researcher, you can produce a paper that says that immigrants don't commit more crimes, if you sample plenty of legal immigrants from similar-culture countries, and you massage the data set a bit, and cops are being nudged not to report too many crimes done by illegal immigrants. And then people can point to that paper and say: "see, immigrants don't commit more crimes." Which seems to be a strong argument on the surface, but the argument falls apart if you look a bit deeper.

What frequently happens is that the left first decides for emotional or ideological reasons which position is correct. Then they heavily push science into that direction. And then, ta-da, science shows what the left wants it to show. But this isn't actually science. It's an ideological process that wears the skin of science.

Or as another example: the left has decided, for emotional and ideological reasons, that children have equally good outcomes with same-sex parents (two moms or two dads) as they do with different-sex parents (one mom and one dad). 

This isn't actually true. In reality, children have slightly worse outcomes with same-sex parents.

To get some intuitive sense of this, picture a household with two dads and a boy. That household seems a bit skewed towards the masculine, doesn't it? Indeed it is. And if you have a household with two dads and a girl, that also isn't great because then the girl doesn't have a parent who has been a female child and a female teenager herself. Furthermore, does a teenage girl really want to learn about her periods and the changes in her body from her father?

Similarly, a household with two moms and a daughter is too skewed towards the feminine. And if you have a boy with two moms, then he grows up without a father figure and it's entirely possible that he'll be severely blocked in his masculinity when he grows up.

Adding more children doesn't fix this. If you have two moms and two daughters, it's still too skewed to the feminine. If you have two moms, a daughter and a son, then the son is still growing up without a father figure. Et cetera.

Now, whether a child has same-sex or different-sex parents isn't a hugely influential factor. For example, it is better for a child to grow up with two moms or two dads in a prosperous and stable household, than it is for a child to grow up with a mom and a dad in a poor and unstable household. Some same-sex couples are better parents than the average different-sex couples. 

I'm not saying that same-sex parents should be banned from raising children. There are factors that have a bigger impact on the probability that the child has a good life, and parents who score poorly on those more influential factors also aren't banned from raising children. For example, it's better for a child to be raised by two moms than by a single mom, and single moms also aren't banned from raising children.

But, yes, children raised by same-sex parents do have slightly worse outcomes.

However, the left doesn't like that fact for emotional and ideological reasons. And academia is dominated by the left. So the scientists themselves may be left-wing. Even if they're not, they will understand that should their research conclude that children in same-sex households have worse outcomes, then they risk being defunded, deplatformed, getting into huge problems with the administration of their research institute, they risk getting harassed by ideological activists, et cetera.

If someone knows that they risk being fired or defunded if they conclude something, then of course the vast majority of people aren't going to draw the forbidden conclusion. It's the famous saying: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Even if you have a researcher who happens to not be left-wing (somewhat rare in left-wing dominated academia), and they are courageous enough to stand up to potential pressure from activists and their peers and the research institute itself, and they are brave enough to risk being defunded and deplatformed and fired... their research might still simply not get through peer review and hence not be published in a respectable scientific journal. Or it gets published somewhere, and no one reports on it, and the public at large doesn't become aware of it.

Because, after all, many on the left consider it harmful and hate speech to say that children of same-sex parents have slightly worse outcomes. Even though that's true. And harmful or hate speech of course shouldn't ever be allowed, by definition, because it's harmful or hate speech. 

Note that at no point was there ever an investigation about whether it was actually true: it was just labeled as harmful speech or hate speech for ideological reasons, and then of course harmful speech or hate speech isn't allowed.

So what nearly always happens in practice is that the only people who will research these kinds of "only one conclusion is allowed" topics are ideologues who already agree with the one allowed conclusion, and they are very eager to indeed confirm that conclusion.

And they often manipulate or even torture the data until it says what they want it to say. Non-statisticians don't quite understand that you can very easily get rid of these kinds of "real, but not hugely influential" factors through statistical manipulation.

And the result is that the scientific literature will indeed say that children of same-sex parents do not have worse outcomes. But how did the scientific literature end up saying that?

Where in the scientific method does it say that you should defund or censor people who say things that you ideologically don't like, or manipulate data in order to get ideologically pleasing results? Because that happens all the time nowadays. Is it really science at that point, or is it just an ideological process that wears science as a skin?

Similarly, suppose a historian makes a case that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Well, likely the case by this historian won't be seriously considered, and instead the historian will get defunded or censored or called a conspiracy theorist or something like that. And then of course people can say that the consensus among historians is that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition. But in what way was that consensus reached? Did historians ever seriously and objectively look at the case that 9/11 was a controlled demolition?

Are historians even being objective at that point? Are scientists even being objective at this point? 

And if not, does it make to act like "scientists say X" is the final word and any discussion or disagreement beyond that is anti-science?

So the next time that someone on the left says that science or experts agree with some position that the left ideologically likes, ask yourself: if some scientist or expert found a result that the left didn't like, would the left-dominated academia attempt to deplatform or defund or censor them, or block them at peer review for ideological reasons? If yes, then what you are dealing with is not in fact science, it's an ideological process that wears the skin of science.

I hope this was helpful.

I love you very much and I wish you a good week.

Your star brother,

Hakann

Blog Post Layout © 2024 crystalwind.ca. All rights reserved.