Connect with us

Essay On Summers Comments On Women In Science

Discussion in 'General Electronics' started by Steven O., Apr 9, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Guest

    Few points:

    1) The irrelevance of this is touched on in another post.
    2) The standard that argument qualifies as "rational" only if it
    mentions *all* the data in existance that maybe, possibly, has some
    bearing on the topic, is nonsensical.
    3) The studies of teacher behavior in classrooms that you mention are
    of the classic type of "liberal arts studies", non-quantitative,
    full of impressions and anecdotal evidence. I would not (this is
    *****not*****) take them seriously. YMMV.

    Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
    | chances are he is doing just the same"
     
  2. Guest

     
  3. Guest

    I disagree. Garbage should be *confronted*, at the source. It is
    precisely given the climate at Harvard right now that what he did
    *should* have been done. Only...
    .... right. So that's his failure. When you pick a fight, you should
    be ready to carry it through.
    You're a bit fixated on this topic, methink:) Work prevention is
    often one of the outcomes, but it is not a goal be itself.
    No, most certainly not. Read again.
    No, I think that you missed what he was talking about.

    Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
    | chances are he is doing just the same"
     
  4. Since the studies were conducted with cameras and microphones in
    actual classrooms, it's pretty open-and-shut. Note everyone who is
    biased against females is male.
    No doubt, but I would rather trust the evidence on camera and on tape
    than your preconceptions.
    It was the issue in the speech, no matter how sorry you may be about
    it.
    Oddly enough, the NBA doesn't care about the distribution; it actually
    measures the heights of its candidates instead of measuring skin
    color.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to
     
  5. No; what is touched on is your failure to understand the relevance.
    PKB. The studies in question were not subjective and *did* rely on
    quantitative data, but your argument is relying on vague impressions
    instead of hard figures.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to
     
  6. Guest

    As I said, it was touched on in another post. Read there.
    Feel free to continue stringing words together.

    Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
    | chances are he is doing just the same"
     
  7. Guest

    About as "open and shut" as the famous "power lines cause cancer"
    studies. Very nice till you see a significant number of studies and
    you notice the discrepancies. When female students are treated more
    leniently than male ones, the authors of thge study say that "this
    lowering of pressure makes it more likely for them to fall behind".
    When, in different study, different school system and different
    setting, they're subject to as harsh a questioning as the male
    students, the study says "this makes them shut off". Etc. etc. In
    short, any difference, *no matter* in what direction, is taken as
    "bias against females". And you recognize, over time, that this is so
    since the "conclusion" was there from the beginning.
    No, it wasn't. The issue was aptitude. As in ...
    Right, ***exactly***. And they don't feel the need to "balance" the
    players population, assuring that "all groups are properly
    represented". PC academics, on the other hand, are whining about
    "insufficient representation of ..." etc. and refuse to believe that
    merit may play any part here. No, this *must* be discrimination, it
    is *impossible* that there are any aptitude differences. This was
    precisely the point of Summers' speach, that difference in
    representation may be the result of difference in aptitudes, not
    discrimination.You may feel free to pretend that this ain't so, but, judging by the
    example you chose to keep, as well as the one you chose to snip, I
    would say that you argue in less than good faith. Not very surprising,
    to me.

    Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
    | chances are he is doing just the same"
     
  8. ROTF,LMAO!

    Leniency is not the issue. Calling on students is the issue. Once
    again you are trying to put up a smoke screen to cover your lack of an
    argument.
    The issue isn't balancing the student population. The issue is
    asserting differences in ability without objective data to back up
    those assertions.
    The issue isn't PC academics; the issue is blatantly biased academics.
    The issue isn't whether to study any hypothetical differences in
    aptitude; the issue is whether to presuppose the answer. Right wing
    political correctness is no more palatable than the left wing variety.
    No; Summer's speech begged the question instead of asking for an
    honest inquiry.
    I don't need to pretend.
    PKB. I would say that you have transcended bad faith and are a
    misogynist actively lying to promote your cause.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to
     
  9. Guest

    Leniency has part in calling on or not calling on, as well.
    You begin running out of things to say.

    Nope. The issue is asserting, not only without any objective data but
    in contradiction to existing data, that no, it is *strictly*
    impossible that any differences in ability may exist between groups
    (be it ethnic groups or genders) and demanding the crucification of
    anybody who'll dare to say otherwise. Those engaging in this behavior
    are PC-twits. Those yielding their support, likewise.

    As an aside, people who actually brought up children (more than one,
    so they have the ability to compare) will tel you that by and large
    there are differences in behavior, patterns of play etc. between males
    and females from very early on, before they even begin to speak.
    The issue is PC-twits.
    The only ones presupposing an answer here are the PC-twits. Their
    presupposed answer is that there can be no difference.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with left wing or right wing. Only
    with intellectual honesty. The very assumption that there is anything
    "political" involved here shows clearly that your angle here has
    nothing to do with intellectual inquiry.
    Only in the mind of a PC-twit does a call for somebody's resignation
    for expressing ideas *anchored in data* (yes my dear twit, there is
    plenty of data on the differences of the distributions, ask Steven
    Pinker if you don't believe it) qualify as "honest inquiry".

    You are a perfect example of the problem. And now, that this has been
    established, I see no value (intellectual or otherwise) in continuing
    a conversation with you. So long.

    Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
    | chances are he is doing just the same"
     
  10. Ah, yes, benign neglect. Such a sound educational policy.
    That is a straw dummy. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand,
    which was an academic asserting his prejudices as fact without a shred
    of evidence to back them up. You seem to have a propensity for seeing
    a left-winger under every bed.
    Those seeing that behavior where it does not exist are lunatic fringe
    Fox wingnuts They are also PC[1] twits.
    Those who actually brought up children notice that there are major
    differences in behavior, patterns of play etc. between children of the
    same sex from very early on, before they even begin to speak.
    Statistical differences between two groups is no excuse for treating
    the members of either group as interchangeable parts. Nor does
    observing one difference constitute evidence for an unrelated
    difference.
    Such as you.
    Such as you.
    No. That's the voices in your head.
    Of course it does. That's why you're blind to the evidence.
    Which you lack.
    That I can spot obvious patterns of behavior. But please note that you
    are being a hypocrite, with your use of terms like "PC twit" instead
    of rational debate.
    All that has been established is that you are a disingenuous,
    prejudiced fool with delusions of adequacy.
    Stay not the order of your departure, but go.

    [1] Eric Hoffer had it right about the fundamental identity of
    left-wing fanatics and right-wing fanatics.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to
     
  11. That I can spot obvious patterns of behavior. But please note that you
    are being a hypocrite, with your use of terms like "PC twit" instead
    of rational debate.
    [/QUOTE]

    And your replies of, "And so are you!" have added so much to this thread.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-