Stop Equating Science With Truth

Liquid Smoke said:
Wiki criticism section, third paragraph.

They say she regards E=mc2 as a "sexed equation" because of their interpretation of her response to a question on the subject, for instance when she says "Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us".[11] They also take issue with the assertion that fluid mechanics is unfairly neglected because it deals with "feminine" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics. In a review of Sokal and Bricmont's book, Richard Dawkins[12] wrote that, "You don't have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (...), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem (the Navier–Stokes equations are difficult to solve)."
Click to expand...
I love it when the first and only thing I know about someone is something extraordinarily stupid they've said.

Good grief!
 
Pwent said:
18194031_1341487755940397_3726929003747510962_n.jpg
Click to expand...

You know it's true because he's wearing a lab coat and he's holding a beaker.
 
If one does not think science represents human's best attempt at the truths of the natural world, I would enjoin one to provide an alternative.
 
Overpressure said:
I love it when the first and only thing I know about someone is something extraordinarily stupid they've said.

Good grief!
Click to expand...
Thing is these ideas were laughed at when they were first said. I know you don't like Trump, but he was the only one to tell these people to fuck off last year.
 
Liquid Smoke said:
Thing is these ideas were laughed at when they were first said. I know you don't like Trump, but he was the only one to tell these people to fuck off last year.
Click to expand...
It's not as if I disagree with all of his stated policies.
I'm fine with the halt to immigration for example.
 
An interesting point comes from the very first sentence of the article. In an obvious reference to Damore, it claims that he thinks men are superior and that women are inferior. Besides the fact that this misses the point and is irrelevant to the claims being made, the characterization is also wrong.

Men are in fact represented more than women at the higher end of the IQ spectrum, but they're also more represented at the lower end, meaning if men are superior, they're also inferior.
 
Mark Hunts FIST said:
But isn't that what he was saying...that it's not true for everyone.... but in general terms the majority of women aren't interested in stem/coding... therefore you have less women working in the field. And that its ok...and you can't change demographics within the company when the educational demographics remain 70/30 male.
Click to expand...

But that's not the extent of what he was saying. He was saying that the way to advance diversity within the company would be to fall back on the gender averages. What I'm saying is that approach relies on treating women who have clearly shown an interest in tech in a fashion that is correlated with all women, including women who have no interest in tech.

He acknowledges the differences and then says that even the women who work at Google are examples of those differences when the fact that they chose this profession is a pretty good sign that they're probably further from the differences than a woman who chose another industry, like teaching.

And I'm only speaking about that limited element of his writing. Most of what he said was very on point, imo. But in that very small area he demonstrated what I consider 2 contradictory tones. He laid out the science accurately and then somewhat ignored what that meant within his specific industry.
 
method115 said:
I agree for the most part accept the bolded I'm sure some slipped through the cracks. My sister was 1 year away from getting her BA in Information Technology. She's a hard worked and could have easily landed a job at Google but she has no interest in technology at all she only went that direction because of my family always pushing IT. I personally have always loved IT so I was going that direction regardless.

Even now she has a degree in something else that she doesn't care for so much but makes amazing money and is very high up in the company. She has always been an arts person. She was always writing books and poems and even got some of her poems published.
Click to expand...

So, she never actually went through with joining a high level tech firm or she only didn't join Google. And in the end, did she get the IT degree or a humanities degree?
 
The Diplomat said:
Aye. I mean, when you add the human element to the equation, variables will multiply. A person can be great, but people are a mess.



I didn't really see anything wrong with the memo, on a practical level. There's nothing wrong with minorities and women being on the team, as long as they got their on their own merit.
Click to expand...

I think the memo was generally fine and he didn't talk about minorities at all. He talked about bias and diversity training to correct for bias which is a different subject altogether.
 
dontsnitch said:
An interesting point comes from the very first sentence of the article. In an obvious reference to Damore, it claims that he thinks men are superior and that women are inferior. Besides the fact that this misses the point and is irrelevant to the claims being made, the characterization is also wrong.

Men are in fact represented more than women at the higher end of the IQ spectrum, but they're also more represented at the lower end, meaning if men are superior, they're also inferior.
Click to expand...

Its what I have to explain to my girlfriend when she starts bitching about no women in STEM, president, etc...

I tell her that while men may get all the glorious, prestigious jobs that she envy's, we are also the ones filling up the prisons and low-skilled labor positions.
 
klnOmega said:
Its what I have to explain to my girlfriend when she starts bitching about no women in STEM, president, etc...

I tell her that while men may get all the glorious, prestigious jobs that she envy's, we are also the ones filling up the prisons and low-skilled labor positions.
Click to expand...

It's shallow thinking. Nobody ever complains that there's not enough women working in oil rigs.
 
panamaican said:
So, she never actually went through with joining a high level tech firm or she only didn't join Google. And in the end, did she get the IT degree or a humanities degree?
Click to expand...

She went with some other degree in environmental safety. She doesn't really enjoy it either and wishes she had tried to become a writer instead.
 
panamaican said:
He acknowledges the differences and then says that even the women who work at Google are examples of those differences when the fact that they chose this profession is a pretty good sign that they're probably further from the differences than a woman who chose another industry, like teaching.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.
 
Only ignorant people equate science with truth. Science is an approximation to truth but never truth because of the problem of induction, the meta-induction problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,070
Messages
55,465,273
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top