"Settled Science"

The term "settled science" has appeared frequently of late, especially in discussions of the role of CO2 in climate change, implying that the innocuous gas is the major factor in the earth's oceans moving inexorably to a Gorian boiling point. Apparently some group of scientists, or pseudo-scientists, has felt it proper to end investigation of climate complexities, assume the veracity of their beliefs, and promote their remedies for this assumption. While their remedies have run into economic realities, they carry on. 

The fact is that if there were such a thing as "settled science" the view that the earth is flat would be regarded as truth today. Doctors would continue to believe that stomach ulcers are a result of stress rather than the bacterial infection that they were discovered to be. Thanks to Dr. Barry Marshall they now know better. At the same time, no doubt the good doctor would tell us that research into stomach issues must continue. There is no "settled science".

The "settled science" phrase jumps out in the latest academic argument that few will ever notice. This one is between the American Anthropological Association/Canadian Anthropological Society  and some of its members who were scheduled to present a talk at the groups 2023 conference in November at Toronto. A scheduled presentation was to be given by these members called "Let's Talk About Sex, Baby".

Ramona Perez, president of the AAA and   Professor of Anthropology, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies, and Chair of the Aztec Identity Initiative at San Diego State University. She also is the Chair of the Institutional Review Board (2012 to present) and is graduate faculty in Global Health and Women’s Studies signed a letter rejecting the presentation to its authors. Also signatory is the president of the Canadian counter part, Monica Heller, a past president of the AAA and currently also a professor in linguistic anthropology at the University of Toronto. The gist of the letter: 

   We write to inform you that at the request of numerous members the respective executive boards of AAA and CASCA reviewed the panel submission “Let's Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” and reached a decision to remove the session from the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference program(me). This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, the safety and dignity of our members, and the scientific integrity of the program(me). The reason the session deserved further scrutiny was that the ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large.

 

Dr. Ramona L. Perez

The response to the cancellation from the authors was this:

We are disappointed that the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) have chosen to forbid scholarly dialogue at the important joint conference, themed “Transitions”, to be held in Toronto in November. Our panel, “Let’s Talk About Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology”, was accepted on July 13th, 2023 after the submission “was reviewed by the AAA’s Section Program Chairs or by CASCA’s Scientific Committee/Comité Scientifique de la CASCA”. From the time of this acceptance until we received your letter dated September 25th, 2023, no one from the AAA or CASCA reached out to any of the panelists with concerns.

 “Anthropologists around the world will quite rightly find chilling this declaration of war on dissent and on scholarly controversy. It is a profound betrayal of the AAA’s principle of ‘advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world’s most pressing problems,’” 

The AAA released a statement on Sept. 28 that included this:

The first ethical principle in AAA’s Principles of Professional Responsibility is to “Do no harm.” The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline, framed in ways that do harm to vulnerable members of our community. It commits one of the cardinal sins of scholarship—it assumes the truth of the proposition that it sets out to prove, namely, that sex and gender are simplistically binary, and that this is a fact with meaningful implications for the discipline.

 

 Dr. Monica Heller    harneyprogram.ca

Since anthropology has been regarded as a field of study it has struggled for acceptance as a "science". As in other liberal arts, its work doesn't speak the language of science, which is numbers. There is an inferiority complex that runs through liberal arts because it isn't easily able to enumerate its theories and discoveries. That's why college psychology freshmen are subjected to tests. The results are used to build numerical tables and graphs that supposedly lend credibility to studies by grad students. Engineering students laugh at this.

One commentator has suggested that rather than study ethnic groups different from their own, anthropologists should study anthropologists. That seems like a good idea.

Be that as it may, the crucial words of this statement are these: "The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline...." It's amazing that educated people, in fact educated to the point where they are leaders in a field that desperately wants recognition as a science, can make a statement of such ignorance. Science is never settled. New ideas, theories, experiences and viewpoints change science frequently. The rejection of the presentation is unscientific, disallowing studies that may or may not be true without examination and discussion is an example of non-science that inspired the likes of Savonarola. It is dogma. The AAA and the CSACA owe both these people and the anthropology community an apology.