#dogmatism

–

–

Abstract

The “dominant gender narrative” in science holds that bias against women is pervasive and occurs in every domain, including tenure-track hiring, letters of recommendation, awards, grants, journal publications, authorship assignment, citations, salaries, promotions, and teaching evaluations. Many of these claims are repeatedly broadcast despite their nullification by larger, stronger studies and meta-analyses that do not find gender bias. Because these stronger studies are cited less often, there exists a false belief among many faculty that gender bias is omnipresent in the tenure-track academy. As an example of this false belief, 248 U.S. faculty were surveyed about their beliefs regarding gender bias. They overestimated the extent of such bias in every domain. We illustrate this misalignment of beliefs by focusing on just one of the many domains in which bias against women is alleged but has been nullified by stronger studies: tenure-track hiring. We show that the dominant narrative of pervasive bias in favor of hiring men is not supported by the evidence. The reality is the opposite of what is believed, with women preferred over comparable men: multiple sources of evidence demonstrate that in tenure-track hiring in the United States and many European countries, women have an advantage over equally-accomplished men. Yet, the claim of bias against hiring women faculty continues to be widely cited in the premier science media. Challenging the gender narrative should be part of normal scientific discourse; however, doing so often evokes a backlash—as documented in testimonials by researchers who have been attacked.

––

––

See also, from 2015:

By: Ted Boscia

Published: Apr 13, 2015

…

Published online April 13 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper, “National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference For Women on STEM Tenure Track,” by Wendy M. Williams, professor of human development, and Stephen J. Ceci, the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology, both in Cornell’s College of Human Ecology, argues that the academic job market has never been better for women Ph.D.s in math-intensive fields.

…

–

==

Religion has historically been both a preserver of knowledge and a constraint upon inquiry. Philosophically, the stagnating effect of religion on individual knowledge-seeking does not arise from spirituality itself, but from how religious systems structure certainty, authority, and doubt.

At issue is not belief—but finality.

1. Revelation as an Endpoint Rather Than a Question

Many religions are grounded in revealed truth—knowledge presented as complete, divinely sanctioned, and unquestionable.

When truth is framed as:

already known

already spoken

already perfect

the search for knowledge risks becoming interpretation without investigation.

Inquiry shifts from:

“What is true?” to “How do I align with what is already true?”

This replaces exploration with compliance.

2. Authority Replacing Curiosity

Religious systems often assign epistemic authority to:

sacred texts

clergy

tradition

divine command

When authority becomes absolute, curiosity becomes disobedience.

The individual learns:

not how to question

but who is allowed to answer

This discourages independent reasoning and trains the mind toward epistemic submission.

3. Moralization of Doubt

In many traditions, doubt is framed not as a stage of learning but as:

weakness

temptation

sin

lack of faith

This moral framing creates internal censorship.

The individual does not merely fear being wrong—but being morally flawed for asking.

Once doubt becomes guilt, inquiry collapses.

4. Closed Metaphysical Systems

Religions often provide:

origins

purposes

cosmic explanations

ultimate destinies

While comforting, these systems can become explanatory monopolies.

When every question already has a metaphysical answer, new explanations appear unnecessary—or threatening.

Knowledge stagnates not because questions disappear, but because answers arrive too quickly.

5. Fear of Existential Consequences

Religious belief often ties knowledge to:

salvation

punishment

eternal consequence

This raises the stakes of inquiry beyond truth-seeking.

To question becomes to risk:

identity

community

meaning

eternity

When the cost of being wrong is infinite, epistemic risk-taking ends.

6. Identity Fusion with Belief

Religion often merges belief with identity.

To challenge belief is to challenge:

family

culture

selfhood

belonging

Knowledge-seeking requires psychological distance. When belief becomes who one is, inquiry becomes self-erasure.

The mind defends identity before it defends truth.

7. Sanctification of Tradition

Religions tend to preserve ancient frameworks.

While tradition offers continuity, it can also freeze paradigms.

When age is mistaken for truth, innovation becomes heresy, and revision becomes betrayal.

Knowledge stagnates because the past is treated as superior to the present.

8. The Comfort of Final Meaning

Perhaps the deepest reason religion can stagnate inquiry is that it offers existential closure.

To believe one already knows:

why suffering exists

why death occurs

why the universe is ordered

removes the discomfort that drives philosophy and science.

Inquiry thrives on unease. Certainty anesthetizes it.

9. Important Clarification: Religion Is Not Inherently Anti-Knowledge

Historically, religion has:

founded universities

preserved texts

inspired science

motivated moral inquiry

The stagnation occurs when religion becomes:

unquestionable

totalizing

fearful of revision

The problem is dogmatism, not spirituality.

Conclusion

Religion stagnates the individual search for knowledge when it:

treats answers as final

replaces inquiry with obedience

moralizes doubt

fuses belief with identity

makes uncertainty dangerous

Knowledge requires openness, fallibility, and risk.

When a worldview forbids those qualities, it may offer comfort—but at the cost of discovery.

The enduring philosophical tension is this:

Does one seek truth—even if it destabilizes meaning? Or preserve meaning—even if it limits truth?

Robocop? Not cyberpunk, it has megacorporations and human augmentation, but no cyberspace and no punk protagonists.

Akira? Not cyberpunk, it has megacorporations and punk protagonists, but no cyberspace and no technological human augmentation.

Blade Runner? Extra not cyberpunk. No cyborgs, no cyberspace, no punks. Just cops and androids.