Chapter 1: The Nature of Scientific Rules

In a recent discussion, a commenter named Hermes Solenzol responded to my article titled “Explaining Gametes To Transphobes (Because Someone Really Needs To).” He argued that:

“Mammals nurture their young within their bodies. This holds true despite the existence of exceptions, such as the platypus and echidna, which are egg-laying mammals. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect; science maintains many rules even when exceptions are present.”

However, it’s important to clarify that the method of nurturing offspring does not determine an animal's classification as a mammal. In fact, mammals give birth to live young rather than laying eggs. The defining characteristic of mammals is the presence of mammary glands that produce milk, which is where the term "mammal" derives from the Latin word “mamma,” meaning breast.

Both the platypus and echidna possess mammary glands. Notably, the platypus secretes milk through its skin rather than feeding it directly to its young. Conversely, echidnas release milk through skin pores, as they lack nipples altogether.

It's significant to highlight how the platypus serves as a prime example of biological complexity. The first scientific description of this animal was made by zoologist George Shaw in the 18th century, during a time when many scientists, including Shaw, doubted its existence.

Hermes further cites various scientific principles that have exceptions, yet his examples often exhibit similar misunderstandings. For instance:

“Information is transcribed from DNA to RNA — yet, some viruses possess an enzyme called ‘reverse transcriptase’ that creates DNA from RNA. One such virus is HIV, which leads to AIDS.”

But since when has the transcription of information from DNA to RNA been an absolute scientific rule? James Watson and Francis Crick never claimed that the reverse process was impossible; they acknowledged that such transfers could occur. The transcription from DNA to RNA is merely the prevalent process, not a rigid rule.

Hermes seems to misunderstand my assertion that solid science is consistent and doesn't allow for exceptions. To clarify, what I intended to convey is that effective science does not merely disregard exceptions; rather, it leverages these anomalies to deepen our understanding of the universe. What troubled me about Soh's comments was her implication that we should abandon the pursuit of absolute truths.

In her work The End of Gender, Soh states:

“Those advocating for the notion of ‘sex as a spectrum’ may argue that a woman who has undergone menopause and no longer produces eggs is still a woman, just as a man who has had his testicles removed is still a man. Thus, biological sex should be defined by criteria other than gametes. This reasoning is absurd, as it reflects activists’ attempts to redefine concepts that do not align with their agendas. Regardless of how we define ‘woman’ or ‘man,’ exceptions will always exist, and they do not warrant redefining these terms.”

Indeed, Debra, the existence of exceptions in defining ‘woman’ or ‘man’ suggests that the rigid binary you uphold is fundamentally flawed.

Let’s delve deeper into the notion of exceptions. Hermes argues:

“In complex systems like living beings, individuals often deviate from the norm. This does not negate the rule. If it did, the method of induction would fail, and we’d have to discard all of science.”

Yet, at what point does “deviation from the norm” become the norm itself? In my original article, I mentioned intersex individuals as exceptions to the binary classification of sex. Even if we accept Leonard Sax’s notably low estimate of intersex individuals at 0.018% of the global population, that still equates to approximately 1.4 million people worldwide. Using a broader estimate of 1-2%, we arrive at around 116 million intersex individuals, comparable in size to the population of Japan, the 11th largest country.

What truly constitutes an exception? For instance, in the U.S., more individuals are born male than female. Does this imply that being born female is an exception to the claim that all individuals are born male? According to the latest census, only 1.1% of the U.S. population identifies as Native American or Alaska Native. Are these individuals exceptions to a claim that no one is Native American or Alaska Native?

While exceptions undoubtedly exist in science, both Soh and Hermes inaccurately suggest that such anomalies are ignored. For example, while most humans exhibit empathy, we do not dismiss those who lack it as mere exceptions. Instead, we investigate these cases to understand the underlying reasons. Simon Baron-Cohen’s research, compiled in The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Human Cruelty, exemplifies this approach. I would welcome Soh to provide an explanation for why intersex individuals fit within the binary framework she advocates; however, dismissing the discussion entirely as irrelevant is where I take issue.

Essentially, Soh's argument implies that her hypothesis is unfalsifiable, suggesting that exceptions that could challenge her position are inconsequential. This is not a scientific approach; rather, it resembles pseudoscience.

The first video, CIS 1501 - Computer Science 1 for Data Scientists (Python) - Exceptions and Modules, delves into the critical role of exceptions in programming and how they relate to broader scientific concepts.

Chapter 2: The Scientific Method and Its Application

The second video, Debugging with the Scientific Method - Stuart Halloway, explores the use of the scientific method in debugging and how it can enhance our understanding of various processes.

If you enjoyed this article, consider following me on Twitter or supporting my work on Patreon for exclusive rewards. You can also check out my new book, The Definition of Sedition: Notes on Donald Trump’s Attempted Coup.