On April 22nd i.e. the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, radical left-wing activists plan to organize the March For Science where they want to reiterate Lenin's opinion that Marxism-Leninism-Progressivism is one (and perhaps the only) scientific world view. Willis Eschenbach at Anthony Watts' blog and William Briggs at Stream.org have had lots of fun with some developments that have turned the event into a truly ludicrous farce.
The most amusing development is that numerous enthusiastic and important organizers have attacked the idea that Bill Nye should be a leader of the parade – for a funny reason.
Just to be sure, the reason is not that Bill Nye is just a "clown the scientist" who starred as a cool scientist on a TV show for kids two decades ago – rather than a real scientist. No one behind the March For Science cares whether the leaders of the parade know something or nothing about science as long as their ideology is sufficiently left-wing.
The trouble with Bill Nye is that he is a white male! Your parents have just doubly screwed it, Bill, or triply if I count Bill Nye himself as the third screw-up.
After several positive words about Nye, a female biophysicist from North Carolina said:
But I do feel comfortable saying to you what I said to the steering committee: He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.The steering Soviet surely had to agree: Nye's sex and race are politically incorrect.
That's hilarious, Ms Page, because his being a white male is actually the only thing that makes Bill Nye somewhat close to science. Ms Page, who is black and female, has clearly failed to notice the actual status quo of science. Being a scientist does mostly mean to be a white male and this fact has been true at every moment of the recent centuries, since the birth of the scientific method as we know it today. It's true not primarily because the people impose the constraint on the race and sex – although, in the past, it was sometimes imposed. It's true because the objective facts about Nature and the society imply that it's so.
I find it hilarious that these people who love to paint themselves as defenders of facts – and who like to repeat slogans such as "the reality has liberal bias" – are incapable of noticing a fact about the scientists that every average kid in the kindergarten can see as clearly as the Sun: a great majority of scientists are actually white male. Ms Page who loves to fool herself may dislike this fact, persuade herself that science is done by black females, but these games can't change the fact that science has been, still is, almost certainly will be an activity overwhelmingly done by white males and not e.g. black females.
If you wanted a parade that at least superficially looks like a march of scientists, you should better have as many white males as possible, Ms Page! If e.g. blacks will be overrepresented and the racial composition will be 50-50, the march will look like another event of Black Lives Matter or another group of intellectually subpar activists.
White males have made way over 90% of the contributions to the scientific method and the actual scientific results, as weighted by their importance – I am absolutely convinced that within each consistent, unbiased scheme to quantify the people's contributions, a figure above 95% would be easily justifiable. (William Briggs correctly says, like Larry Summers did in 2005, that the overrepresentation of men in sciences is mostly due to the greater variance of their distribution of IQ – men also have wider distributions of most other quantities.) If someone banned non-whites and non-males at the scientific institutions – and these bans have actually existed some century ago or so – the hypothetical negative impact of the ban on the advancements of science would be basically undetectable.
But even these most obvious facts suddenly become "invisible" to the people who are blinded by their ideological delusions. You may check the page at the March For Science server which criticizes those who wanted to claim that the March For Science was an apolitical event. It must be a political event – just a non-partisan one. And the page is full of "inclusion, diversity, and equity". Sorry but these words have exactly zero value for science. They're all about some political goals of some groups of people who want to pretend that they are something that they are not. Science only collects facts and decides about the validity of propositions – and the proposition that all races and both (or all?) sexes are equally important for the scientific progress is demonstrably and self-evidently false. It's false exactly in the same sense and to the same extent as the statement that the Earth is flat.
Thank God, I live in a part of the world where everyone agrees that people like Ms Page – who deny e.g. that science is done predominantly by white males – are loons. The particular question whether science etc. has been done by men was discussed e.g. in the Polish comedy from the 1980s, The Sexmission, here you have a Hungarian version if you want to learn a truly unusual new language. ;-) Around 56:50, you may see the trial against the last two males who survived a prolonged hibernation experiment. Two competing groups of feminists living in their totalitarian underground dystopia are arguing whether Max and Albert should be "naturalized" (e.g. castrated) or killed.
The more shy guy tells them that in our world, women were standing on a pedestal. Poets were written poems for them. But the history of the scientific and related progress was a history of men. He enumerates lots of men – I hope that I don't have to do it for you – and also includes Marie Curie to increase the comical effect. The more extrovert guy gets excited and screams at the ladies that they're acting in this stupid way because they haven't had a man for a long time.
In that movie, the official propaganda really says that Einstein and Copernicus were women, Cain killed his sister Abela, and so on, and so on.
Among other layers of the meaning, The Sexmission was a hidden satire against the communist regime – but everyone agreed that the particular propaganda of the feminists in the movie was absolutely ludicrous. But the movie may be classified as a successful prediction of the future because Ms Stephani Page and other organizers of the March For Science are exactly as unhinged as the feminist ideologues in The Sexmission. They're not capable of seeing even the most obvious scientific facts.
"The March For Science" has clearly nothing positive to do with science. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were big pro-science advocates and honorary scientists in comparison. The people behind "The March For Science" are just absolutely crazy extreme left-wing psychopaths who may dream of becoming good janitors sometime in the future. They clearly don't have what is needed to become a scientist.