Limbaugh grade conservatives likely know much more about the Summers situation than any other group of conservatives. Some of us learn through repetition. If you would consider Rush as an educator, albeit, an entertaining one, you wouldn't denigrate his brand (17,000,000 plus listeners)of conservative. Certainly, radio and bloggers have given this situation a public examination that does the harvard faculty no favors at all.

Most Limbaugh conservatives willing to jump on biological inquiry into the innate differences between sex phenotypes probably reject evolution; may we agree that at least they are hypocrites?

Or at least highly suspect in their selective appreciation of science?

Yglesias responded to Goldberg this mornin'.

Chuck, sure, I think some people are willing to embrace innate sexual differences because they re-inforce a traditionalist worldview, and will draw upon science when convenient.

However, I think it would be more accurate to regard some of the Limbaugh-brand conservatives as a subset of a larger group of Americans who are not disposed to scientific inquiry.

What has Jonah decided to do with all of those white feathers the ladies sent him?

-

Yglesias seems to have brought up two points when he only wanted to discuss one. First, he implies the hypocrisy, by saying Summers is our friend and hero. Second, he wants us to respond to Summers' criticisms of OASDI reform. In the first instance, as I noted, we are free to defend Summers in the matter of his remarks without having to embrace his entire philosophy. In the second, it's more than a bit off-topic, which is not to say that it doesn't deserve a response, but to that end, I think I'll leave off and let Jonah wander on his own.

Most Limbaugh conservatives willing to jump on biological inquiry into the innate differences between sex phenotypes probably reject evolution; may we agree that at least they are hypocrites?

Or at least highly suspect in their selective appreciation of science?

This argument makes no sense at all. How can you say that someone is a hipocrite for accepting certain scientific ideas while rejecting others when there are many topics that the scientific community itself can't even agree on? The fact that there are dissenting opinions among scientists only proves that not every scientific idea can be right.

It was not an argument. It what happens when someone is caught looking down their nose at others.

Chuck's argument was to assign a view on evolution to people who defend Summers and listen to Rush Limbaugh, and then to call them hypocrites because their real views contradict what Chuck said they "probably" believe.

I do think there are people who, because of the way they usually look at the world, "probably" disagree with evolution but agree with what Summers said. The kinds of people that I am thinking of would rather believe what they are familiar or comfortable with than allow scientific evidence to force them to change their views (though they approve of science if it supports what they already believe). However, I do not think there is any reason to assume that a person who listens to Rush Limbaugh and defends Summers is necessarily the kind of person that I just described, or the kind that does not believe in evolution. Even if the probability of this were high, it would be a weak argument to call Summers-defending Limbaugh fans hypocrites based on a contradiction between their words and a view that we have assigned to them.

Actually, I don't even see the putative contradiction in the worldview . You don't have to believe in evolution to believe in genetics, and the belief in innate gender-based differences only requires something like the latter, not the former. (Which is not to say that I don't think that there's overwhelming evidence for natural selection -- I just think the flavor of dittoheadism in question is more self-consistent than the speculations here have acknowledged.)