Can You Trust Academic Research?
On this website you can find a mountain of evidence to show that
academics cannot be trusted when it comes to their various pronouncements.
And a recent interview in the Spectator with the well-respected Professor
Robert Plomin - who has, basically, spent his working life studying
twins to assess the levels of inheritability of various characteristics -
sheds some further light on why it is that the 'research' emanating from
so many academics is bogus.
I quote from the article ...
‘Education is the last — well, backwater,’ says Dr Robert with a
grin. Then he tells a story about the dark old days of the 1970s when he
was young and antagonism to genetics was the norm.
‘My very first conference was by this old guy Leon Kamin, the
author of a book called The Science and Politics of IQ,’ says Plomin.
‘Kamin came back to academia just so as to stop this pernicious
stuff about genetics entering psychology.
There were 2,000, maybe 3,000 people. It was dark and he was bald
with kinda craggy features. I mean he looked scary.
Then he started saying: “We’ve got to stop this talk of genetics
now!” And I realised it didn’t matter to Kamin what
was true. (My underlining.)
He believed in what he called “science for the people”, which was
what he thought it would be useful for the people to know. I mean, that
killed me because it was Kamin and these elite Harvard professors
deciding what’s for the people!
The idea was that science should serve politics.
And this is what we have had to endure for the past four decades,
science serving politics - including gender politics.
In other words, it just does not matter to these academics what is
Their aim is to manipulate
Their aim is to manipulate, not to elucidate or to educate.
Indeed, it was during the 70s that the feminists - and the Left -
really started to gain a stranglehold on almost the whole of academia, by
engaging in their usual tactics of generating hysteria, hostility and
aggression toward those whose views conflicted with their agenda.
And today, we are all accustomed to the histrionics of the feminists
and their politically-corrected cronies whenever anybody dares to question
Throughout the past four decades these malicious groups have physically
assaulted academics who raised questions about their views. They have
disrupted their lectures, vocally accused them of being sexist, racist,
homophobic, etc etc, and they have had them kicked out of their jobs.
The upshot is that these people have now bullied their way into
positions of power - almost everywhere - and in order to join in and climb
their various power ladders (e.g. through one's career) one merely has to
support their nonsense. The better you support it, the higher do you
And if you don't support them then they will use every tactic possible
to hurt you - if they can.
Most of you still have no idea of how big this 'beast' has become.
It is positively enormous.
Various aspects of it are commonly labelled as Cultural Marxism,
political correctness, feminism, multiculturalism etc etc etc. But,
essentially, they all stem from a continuing and successful power grab by
government and by government workers - though, of course, most of the
latter will not know what is really going on; i.e. they will not see the
some 96% of all university professors in America vote
And when it comes to the academics themselves, some 96% of all
university professors in America vote Left.
Those who don't, don't get the jobs.
So, when it comes to academic 'research', you always need to bear in
mind that where social/political/economic/educational and gender issues
are concerned, you are being deceived - because the research findings of
these academics will mostly be designed to please their political masters
and, hence, to further their careers.
Indeed, most of them do not have much choice.
Either they toe the line, or they are in deep trouble.
As such, as a layperson, you should distrust just about every piece of
research ever done over the past four decades - particularly when it comes
to gender issues.
This research is mostly bogus. And it has mostly been manufactured in
order to manipulate people and in order to get funding, power and
As such, and for example, the research into sex-assault, rape, domestic
violence, family matters, gender differences, etc etc that is produced by
these academics is phony.
And most of their 'research' time is spent on trying to figure out how
to manufacture the 'correct' data, how to ignore the 'incorrect' data, how to re-shape the language, and how
to distort the concepts associated with these things in such a way that it
all sounds convincing.
And when, eventually, the whole 'model' is
complicated enough - so complicated that it takes years to understand it -
and even longer to see through its carefully-constructed facade - and with students also being indoctrinated by it as they gradually get engulfed by it
in order to pass their exams -
you end up with some kind of false 'ideology' that is difficult to shake off.
To repeat, ...
it didn’t matter to Kamin what
Finally, I should say that not all academics are
The problem is, however, how do you know which ones are honest and
which ones are not?
And how do you know that what they are telling you is not a result of
their own indoctrination?
My own increasing awareness of the lack of validity of much social
science research also occurred in the 70s; the period wherein I spent
about a decade inside university.
Fortunately, my psychological interests were not in areas that were
politically contentious, and so, for the most part, I remained relatively
unaffected by the rising tide of aggression that was being directed at
those psychologists whose observations countered left-wing dogma.
Nevertheless, I began to realise that something unwholesome was going
on in many areas to do with Psychology and the Social Sciences.
The most disconcerting of all for me was the way in which academics in
Education departments were indoctrinating teachers with the view that
teaching children to read should not involve using 'phonics' - a system
wherein children are specifically taught to recognise that the way in
which words are spelled has a significant bearing on how they might be
decoded, articulated and, hence, understood; e.g. see
Learning to Read.
This just did not make any sense to me.
I just could not understand how all these academics could be so stupid.
How was it possible that they actually wanted children to ignore one of
the most useful tools of language ever invented? - the alphabet.
I had no idea what was going on.
(The idea was to disadvantage the boys relative to the girls.)
Furthermore, it seemed very often to be the case that in even the most
'trivial' and non-contentious of areas, academics from one university
would align themselves with a particular point of view - and find data
supporting it - while academics from another university with a different
point of view always seemed to manage to find data that supported their
Once again, how was this possible?
Surely, on at least some occasions, the data from somebody's
experiments would support the opposing camp.
And, if so, why did they never mention it?
In short, I began to realise that politics and prejudice were having
far too much influence on the outcomes of academic work.
And it was mostly for this reason that I bailed out of a career as a
And it seems to me that the current situation is such that no academic
can be trusted these days - except, perhaps, for most of those who work in
the hard sciences; such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology.
However, even neuroscientists are infused with political dogma; e.g. see
Lewis Wolpert: The Differences Between Men and Women