They seem to be based on the idea that the writer has drawn the wrong conclusion. The facts or lack thereof seem to be irrelevant: if he had cited the same papers but made the opposite argument, he would have been fine.
The idea of scientists being some kind of arbiters of truth makes me very uncomfortable. The process of science is really messy. People want to publish surprising and extraordinary findings (which often turn out to be false, and the more extraordinary, the more likely this is). We have to publish or perish. And many other problems.
Over the long term, science finds truth. In the short term, it is quite unreliable. Scientists are tired of having their work used to support agendas, when in reality we only observe, and usually the observations don't even support the agendas they're being used for.
At this point, I think more and more scientists would prefer that science just be left out of politics. Politics appears to be a lost cause, far beyond any ability for facts or reason to be useful, and we have always done our best to leave politics out of science. To the left and right, I would just plead: leave us out of your petty squabbles and let us get on with advancing humanity's future. But I must admit there are some publicity-seeking members of this profession who undercut this hope.
To more directly respond to your post, there is an awful lot of confusion between what science says, and the value judgments derived from a combination of scientific observations and some ideology. I do not think the public, left or right, is generally capable of disentangling facts from their interpretations of the consequences of those facts.
Neither do I, see footnote 2. However, the article this thread is responding to was talking about factual decisions, so I stuck with that assumption.
>At this point, I think more and more scientists would prefer that science just be left out of politics.
By all means, leave politics out of science [0], but we need science to inform are politics. Otherwise, we just get more of the raw ideology that is the very reason you don't like politics.
Science should not be left to just the scientists. They do the hard work of collecting data and running experiments. But mostly, they end up answering very specific questions with varying degrees of confidence. Once they have those answers, they guess at broader implications. These are informed guesses, based on their knowledge of other highly specific results and thinking that others have done. However, this latter part of science is far more accessible than most people realize. So, instead of actually engaging with the science, they simply appeal to the scientists. This is made even worse because they are attempting to understand the conclusion without the argument, and so will tend to misunderstand. Further, since the general public almost never engages with the actual science, politicians and activists have near free reign to misrepresent the results.
[0] Mostly, the question of what to study should be a political one, but politics is so corrupting that I see no problem giving scientists a lot of insulation from it.
> but we need science to inform are politics. Otherwise, we just get more of the raw ideology that is the very reason you don't like politics.
Well, I do like politics, in the sense that I think it is a fascinating window into the most irrational sides of human behavior. But politics is far more powerful as a cultural force than science is. Politics appeals to the most tribal instincts in humans.
Yes, it would be wonderful for science to inform politics. To have a president and Congress who would look at the facts and make decisions based on those facts, which neither a Democratic or Republican administration would really do. So the best we can hope for is for politics not to infect science while we wait for science to make these silly arguments irrelevant, if indeed it does.
For example, I will note that the Obama administration, despite all its lip service to climate change, never did realize the simple fact that modern civilization requires energy, and it will consume the cheapest form of that energy available, and therefore green energy will only win if and when it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. When researchers make green energy cheaper, I predict Republicans will, as if by magic, lose all their skepticism and reservations about climate change, and the left will abandon their unrealistic talk about emissions caps, and it will all become a non-issue.
That's a values question to be slugged out in society. Certainly science (especially if it's well-executed science with broad consensus) can help to inform how we might achieve our desired ends. There's no "right" level of diversity, and I can think of at least several incompatible standards of "fair."
[0] Or, almost equivalently, there exists additional optimizations to better accommodate females that we have not done, giving males an unnecessary advantage.
The question then becomes how much we trust our current scientific institutions. I will agree that the general public tends to put too much trust in any given finding (and often misunderstands the finding itself), but, in general, our scientific institutions are still doing some of the best science in our society. They are certainly doing better science than our political institutions are. [1]
So what do we do when our scientific institutions findings do not align with our political findings? One option is to ignore the science entirely; but without the science, we will proceed along with an ideology that becomes increasingly divorced from reality.
In the case of the Google memo, we have a disagreement about facts [2]. The question here is how to resolve this disagreement. I have seen two proposals: 1) Science and 2) Ideology and mob rule.
Both sides can play in the science debate. There is a lot of science to support the "pro (gender) diversity" side, and we can have a discussion where both sides try to use science to arrive closer to the truth. In fact, if we look at the two sides of the broader diversity debate, the pro diversity side is far more represented in our scientific institutions [3].
[0] Although it is worth noting that, even if we accept religion as the correct arbiter of truth, our religious institutions also have a record of reaching a truth that supports the biases of the time.
[1] Which is not a criticism of our political institutions; their job is not to do science. It is, however, a criticism of deferring to our political institutions for factual judgements.
[2] Actually, in my opinion, most of the disagreement is about words; specifically one side not understanding what the other side is trying to say moreso than disagreeing with it. However, for the sake of arguement, I will assume that both sides understand what the other is saying and have a factual disagreement.
[3] Again, talking about populations, not individuals.