Originally posted by Sam
View Post
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 Sam View PostYou didn't point out any flaws in the PNAS study; you merely implied that the discussion of gender discrimination should be limited to Europe (a contention no one else has made).
Neither did you point out flaws in the Royal Society of Chemistry study in the way I, Myers or others are using it to support the case. You merely dismissed the parts that we use, the parts that discuss gender bias and discrimination, and chose instead to focus on quoting parts that talk about causes of gender disparity other than discrimination or bias — a claim no one has disputed. That's a red herring, for folks playing NatSci debate lingo bingo.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View Post
Originally posted by Paprika View PostMyers et al. have used the discrepancy (or sexual disparity) cited in the Guardian article (12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice) as evidence for the claim significant systematic sexism. Talking about other causes of the disparity is perfectly relevant to whether the disparity is good evidence for sexism.
Myers quotes the last two paragraphs of Rice's article. You're simply straw-manning their arguments to fit something you can assail as over simplified.
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThat would be an interesting contention; unfortunately it's not one I've made. Is your memory perhaps failing?"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 PostWhich you also noted did not apparently detract from the representative nature of the study.
If you're actually claiming that the data isn't representative of the larger sample, then you have to do the work to show that to be the case, or at least plausible. As it stands, this isn't a criticism borne of critical reading: you're simply claiming, without evidence, that the sample isn't representative of the whole.
No; Myers and the Guardian author, Curt Rice, didn't use the discrepancy as evidence for systematic sexism. Both used that number as a starting figure and then explored why that statistic is so low. Both Myers and Rice went into some detail exploring the causes. Rice goes four paragraphs from stating the problem to landing on the existence of gender discrimination
It is, in fact. Narcolepsy. However, if you're not contesting that Taylor's shirt was inappropriate and you're not contesting the fact that gender discrimination in scientific disciplines is both prevalent and structural, I fail to see what your overarching complaint is.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI suppose you're another one of those people who need sarcasm tags.
Do I really need to explain how findings from 6 universities - a small sample - are unlikely to be representative of the academic science nationally?
I leave it to you to show where I've said anything about Rice. Myers, on the other hand, clearly draws on the statistic as evidence for sexism: he quotes an article to the extent that "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist", then accuses the authors for ignoring the "hemorrhage" of women.
You might want to refer to the OP to see why I started this thread.
You mentioned "Myers et. al" — Rice is the only other writer I recall who used the 12% figure. If you've got someone else in mind, I'm interested in the source. And Myers does not draw on the statistic as evidence of of sexism simply because the statistic is low. He very clearly cites Rice's argument regarding structural gender discrimination as being part of the cause for the 12% figure. You are oversimplying him. Myers writes:
And that's starting eight paragraphs into Myers' blog. Further down, Myers even explicitly states:
Emphasis added. You are strawmanning."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 PostOh, no. I figured it might be sarcasm but just saying that drawing faculty from six universities isn't statistically representative isn't demonstrating that to be true. That's like arguing that because Gallup only polls 800 people, the results aren't statistically representative.
It might be true but you've got to do some work to show that to be the case. Otherwise, it collaborates the conclusions of other studies regarding gender discrimination and is completely valid as evidence. Right now, it's just another case of you handwaving something away, rather than actually pointing out fatal flaws.
You mentioned "Myers et. al" — Rice is the only other writer I recall who used the 12% figure. If you've got someone else in mind, I'm interested in the source.
And Myers does not draw on the statistic as evidence of of sexism simply because the statistic is low. He very clearly cites Rice's argument regarding structural gender discrimination as being part of the cause for the 12% figure. You are oversimplying him...
Emphasis added. You are strawmanning.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Is there anything substantial you'd like to say?Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostYour usage of two animated smileys constitutes such a thorough rebuttal.
Is there anything substantial you'd like to say?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostNice attempt at reframing what I said: I was pointing out "flaws in the way you were using it to support your case", not flaws in the study itself. What was the context? Someone asking for evidence of rampant sexism: and you pull out this study on professors from 6 universities.
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI misstated: Myers is the only one who uses the 12% figure; I intended to reference the many who use similar discrepancy figures to argue that sexism exists.
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI am not. He clearly uses the statistic as a rebuttal to the claim that "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist"."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 PostPZ Meyers actually took a look at that study recently; it's a good read. Specifically, Myers focuses on the authors' dismissal of women choosing to avoid specific disciplines in the first place and so finding no problem with gender discrimination. Myer's cites this article from "The Guardian" explaining why women might not be entering a hostile field:
You're trying to argue that this whole scene is about "one particular political group want[ing] total submission to its every trivial whim." I and others are arguing that this is actually a representation of a real and well-established problem in our culture, including scientific circles. And there's ample evidence to support our contention. So, no — you're not going to find agreement that the topic is political (in the partisan sense) or that this is about one particular political group's totalitarian whims. You'll just find us shaking our heads at talk like that.
You can shake your head until it falls off. Doesn't make what I am saying less true. This started out political and ended just the same. I guess the sexism is so bad in academia that a crying apology just would never happen. Look, I know those in this political group have a vested interest (for whatever reason) in seeing rampant sexism around every corner. The evidence just isn't there. No matter how much you wish it were so."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostLook, I know those in this political group have a vested interest (for whatever reason) in seeing rampant sexism around every corner. The evidence just isn't there. No matter how much you wish it were so.
Is it really that hard to believe that people genuinely perceive sexism and are understandably troubled by what, if truly the case, would be a legitimate problem? I just can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys seem to think that others WANT to see sexism "around every corner." You really think feminists randomly decided out of the blue to fabricate tales of sexism, or so desperately wanted a cruel, unjust system stacked against them to be real that they started hallucinating it?Last edited by fm93; 11-18-2014, 10:35 PM.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostAgain with this sentiment?
Is it really that hard to believe that people genuinely perceive sexism and are understandably troubled by what, if truly the case, would be a legitimate problem? I just can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys seem to think that others WANT to see sexism "around every corner.""Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostYes. And the sentiment will continue. I can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys CAN see rampant sexism around every corner.
Additionally, we progress through high school science classes and notice from the material that nearly all of the discoveries and accomplishments were by men. We go to colleges and observe that the student demographics at technology-oriented schools tend to significantly skew towards the male population. Science and engineering shouldn't be intrinsically favorable towards men, so the fact that a group constituting half the population is so underrepresented at such schools is significant. And finally, women friggin' tell us that they've personally experienced sexism in those fields.
You are telling me none of this smacks of politics?
Yes people can genuinely perceive sexism. Perception is not always reality is it?Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_pegWe go to colleges and observe that the student demographics at technology-oriented schools tend to significantly skew towards the male population. Science and engineering shouldn't be intrinsically favorable towards men, so the fact that a group constituting half the population is so underrepresented at such schools is significant. And finally, women friggin' tell us that they've personally experienced sexism in those fields.
Originally posted by square_pegNo, but it's a far cry from "having a vested interest in seeing sexism." You still have yet to explain that remark--what in the world makes you think people WANT to believe sexism against them exists?"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
I just think people need to get their heads out of their donkeys. So, the guy wears a shirt that he likes on his big day. I'd say that he earned it; wanting to dress up funny, and getting a tattoo of his accomplishment on his leg is more than acceptable, considering what he accomplished. I just find it depressing how quickly the internet (esp. tumblr) Feminazis jumped on his case, and started crying misogyny, when it was clearly an isolated, localized event that was more than innocent and earned.
Sometimes, people read too far into things. This is a textbook example.“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins
Comment
Comment