Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
"I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist"
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostSam, the Guardian-cited paper is gold. Some issues are raised that would be of concern if true, but for the others:
Competition for academic posts is extremely high, and on average women are less inclined to make significant sacrifices to participate in such competition. Instead of being a obvious corollary of the general differences between men and women, is this supposed to be doubleplusungood? In which case what do you propose: making the field less competitive for women by affirmative action?
I will let the rest of the quotes pass without comment."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAnd when paired with other evidences and studies, as noted before, it becomes clear that we still have a real problem here regarding discriminatory treatment.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI have to wonder what would have happened if it had been a woman scientist who came out dressed in what is deemed professional attire and the Muslim community erupted in outrage claiming that because she didn't cover her hair that they felt that the community was hostile to them. They could cite statistics showing their underrepresentation in various scientific fields as proof of discrimination get some quotes from Muslim scientists saying how uncomfortable and hence unwelcome they were made to feel and declare that women walking about with their hair uncovered was symptomatic of the hostility to them and their beliefs.
Would the same crowd dismiss it with a "well that's different" (all cases of discrimination by their very nature will be different) or will we see a push for women to cover their hair as part of appropriate dress for the workplace?
112_1business_women_sample_1.jpg
and this?
'Cause I see a difference."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI cede nothing."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIf you're going to run around accusing others of debate games, at least get your terms right. Unsolicited, this would be an example of elephant hurling, not a Gish Gallop.
Of course, this meta-analysis was provided because you decided that the PNAS study wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, seeing as how Matt Taylor is currently working for a European agency.
And, having read the executive summary, I at least know that the commission's paper is on-topic, addresses the point, and deals with numerous studies showing that gender discrimination is a problem in scientific fields. You're just being more than a little lazy in your Goldilocks demands of finding something plopped into your bowl that's just right. But I'm not exactly willing to spoon feed you. You can read the executive summary easily enough, if you're so interested.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI bow to your superior knowledge of debate games.
I merely questioned how the validity of extrapolation of the PNAS study. Should I take your linking of the meta-analysis as a concession as to this point?
I don't see the need to read any paper you feel free to throw without having done detailed reading to examine if it is good evidence to support your point."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThat's the TWeb spirit.
I do want to address a point:
And when paired with other evidences and studies, as noted before, it becomes clear that we still have a real problem here regarding discriminatory treatment.
Cherry-picking a focus on certain findings that are not germane to the topic of discrimination in order to obscure or belittle the findings that are germane doesn't get you very far in the discussion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYou didn't question the validity of extrapolating the PNAS study; you specifically "left it up to the reader," which can reasonably be inferred as casting doubt on the study's value in addressing gender discrimination in European institutions of science.
Regardless, the commission's meta-analysis of European countries certainly addresses your question/implication. And the executive summary clearly concludes that gender discrimination in Europe is borne out by numerous studies. If this were really a contended or contentious conclusion, your professed skepticism of the conclusion might be merited. But it's really not and referencing an executive study is completely within the bounds of acceptable debate presentation, regardless. If you really think the commission's conclusion was in error, you have given precisely no reason for others to think so.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View Post"Casting doubt" is significantly different from "you decided that the PNAS study wasn't relevant to the topic at hand" - I remain open to the possibility of the relevancy.
Originally posted by Paprika View PostBut I'm not arguing that no discrimination exists. On the other hand, you are taking a stand that there is significant systematic sexism, while elephant-hurling papers that you've likely not critically examined before using them as supporting evidence. Whether your approach is convincing, I again leave to the reader.
And, like I said, there's a pretty good wealth of data backing the fact that gender discrimination exists in the sciences. And as it's totally appropriate to reference an IPCC executive summary when arguing for the totally incontestable fact of global warming these days, it's perfectly appropriate to reference the executive summary of a meta-analysis of gender discrimination. If you contest that there, in fact, is gender discrimination prevalent in European institutions of science, "I don't want to have to read enough to contest your source" isn't a persuasive argument.
So you should come down on a side here: are you arguing that the findings of the meta-analysis are in error? Do you accept the conclusions of the executive summary? If the former, what are you finding fault with? If the latter, what of your argument remains pertinent?"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAnd yet you seemed quite willing to leave that potential relevancy "to the reader." I trust you can see how your continued use of that phrase leads to the inference that you're not really pursuing the possibility of relevancy.
I read the PNAS study, read the executive summary + ~10 pages of the EU commission meta-analysis, read the Findings section of the Royal Society of Chemistry . . . I've done sufficient reading on a point that no one has seriously challenged (exempting Jesse, who at least found a contradicting study, which was read and responded to).
And, like I said, there's a pretty good wealth of data backing the fact that gender discrimination exists in the sciences. And as it's totally appropriate to reference an IPCC executive summary when arguing for the totally incontestable fact of global warming these days, it's perfectly appropriate to reference the executive summary of a meta-analysis of gender discrimination. If you contest that there, in fact, is gender discrimination prevalent in European institutions of science, "I don't want to have to read enough to contest your source" isn't a persuasive argument.
Given that I've read
a) the PNAS paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way you were using it to support your case)
b) the RSC paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way Myers, you, et al. were using it to support your case, as well as to extensively quote from it)
it should be pretty clear that I'm not at all adverse to critically reading papers you link. I'm just not inclined to read something you've barely glanced at and then elephant-hurled.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostQuite. You're the one who has the burden of proof to show that a US study has any relevance to behaviour in Europe.
Given that I've read
a) the PNAS paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way you were using it to support your case)
b) the RSC paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way Myers, you, et al. were using it to support your case, as well as to extensively quote from it)
it should be pretty clear that I'm not at all adverse to critically reading papers you link. I'm just not inclined to read something you've barely glanced at and then elephant-hurled.
If you're not adverse to critical reading, you have to address those papers as it pertains to the topic: the PNAS study clearly shows a discriminatory effect of gender, the RSC paper clearly references structural discrimination and the EU commission meta-analysis clearly concludes the same. If you dispute any of those findings, the burden has been moved over to you. You can accept the meta-analysis' findings, you can actually find something wrong with how the commission arrived at its conclusion or you can handwave it away.
And then, somehow, you can tie everything back together to support the contention that Taylor's shirt is appropriate in a professional setting at ESOC or NASA or anywhere else that isn't a strip club or its equivalent.
Best of luck."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
20 responses
71 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 01:18 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
Comment