RORO 2.0

My involvement in the @HeterodoxCentre and @AFAF_freespeech, as well as being a scientific skeptic for almost 20 years now, has got me thinking about progressivism and conservatism (especially within academia). My conclusion is that it would be a mistake to call oneself a progressive or a conservative. Sometimes progress (or change) is well evidenced and is a natural part of human's unique ability to adapt culture to environmental changes. Often conservatism is wise because many traditions have worked well in the past. What the culture wars seem to be more about is progressivism that is not based on strong evidence, nor on good rationalism. Nevertheless, well evidenced and logical progressive ideas may be beneficial if perhaps rigourously stress tested. And, not to be a snob, when there was more consistent rigourous filtering on general intelligence in academia (e.g., standardised tests, rigour, grades, SATs, GREs), the proposed progressive changes were relatively higher quality. Some progressive ideas in the last 15 years have been subjectively emotional, not evidenced, and illogical. In any event, my point is it is a mistake to tie oneself as an academic to being a progressive, or a conservative, because both are needed from time to time. (In a similar way, it would be a mistake to call yourself a hereditarian, given the environment will always a cofactor. Similarly, for wedding oneself to the opposite emphasis).

Academia is awesome in some areas. I should say that more often.