Math Journals Bullied into depublishing math models on gender differences.

It would certainly be ridiculous to deny that it's ultra-competitive among researchers or that issues in regards to publishing need addressing but at the level of pure science (basic research, as opposed to applied and development) this largely isn't the case. Not only is it apolitical but there's no real profit motive attached for the simple fact that scientific theories and discoveries made in nature cannot be patented. There's no focus on products and processes - although it certainly lays the fundamental groundwork for them - it's knowledge for the sake of knowing.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Funding bias is absolutely a real phenomena.
 
Yea, that is very sensitive territory because of how much population genetics on a molecular level has been shown to line up with unsatisfactory traditional concepts of race and ethnicity. The data is subject to heavy objection within the social sciences/humanities. It's just human diversity born out of evolutionary processes that arose from being - largely and comparatively - geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years prior to the advent of modern transportation.

Terrifying stuff, I know. Here's the thing: genomic and genetic research need to be pursued unrestrained, not least because of the immense insight they yield into human history, evolution and ancestry but also for their practical applications in agriculture, health, disease and precision medicine. People need to stop trying circumvent progress with their bullshit brand of social politics and stay in their fucking lane.

Talk about irony and yapping out of both sides of your mouth.

I tend to think that part of the reason politics oversteps its bounds in this area though is exactly because its not "left wing" as is often claimed. The kinds of social inequality that such tactics claim there trying to address are ultimately the result of very large scale systematic issues that would need significant economic alterations to the status quo to address, alterations that would potentially upset too many of the rich and the powerful. Hence we get a focus on this kind of issue pushed to the extreme to cover that.

90% of the debate that goes on in this forum is IMHO between two viewpoints that ultimately aren't very far apart at all in terms of economics and foreign policy.
 
@Son of Jamin could probably show you some amazing things coming out of Sverige as it relates to this sort of nonsense.
Some tidbits from Sweden that is in the forefront for gender studies:

* Government funding for a three year long study of the trumpet as a male marker and how it affects its surroundings.
* Monkey bars, swings, sand boxes and bicycles can be very detrimental towards gender equality, while playing in the woods creates gender equality.
* There is currently a push for removing the labels of mom and dad from the children's' shelf at preschools so it becomes more inclusive.
* Preschools in Uppsala (major town) should teach the kids about how a gender is given to children and not by birth.
* Tax payers money to an artist that pees on herself on a stage in a quest to challenge norms.
 
If this paper had been published a handful of people would have heard about it. Now the paper is on every single right wing blog and publication. Give it another week and this will be on Fox likely Tucker Carlson.
 
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Funding bias is absolutely a real phenomena.

Ah, yeah. We're on different things and that is a problem, particularly in regards to areas of medicine, physiology studies and clinical trials. I was talking more about fundamental research in the raw sciences of physics, chemistry and biology which are without a tangible profit motive. I have mentioned this all before, but I tend to loathe Big Pharma and so many of their egregious abuses take place simply because government allows them to.

The level they've stood to benefit from publicly funded and conducted research even compared to most other sectors is laughable. It's the universities and government labs who not only explain the mechanisms for disease and develop therapy strategies but also validate the drug targets and sometimes even identify the prototype compound before the intellectual property is transferred to the private sector for development. There's hardly an FDA approved drug in this decade that the NIH didn't have a hand in.

The NIH, which US taxpayers fund to the order of $35 billion a year. It's a resource they're allowed to utilize carte blanche and there's no intellectual property rights for scientific research, be it in condensed matter physics, bio-chemistry, molecular biology, genetics or any other field. That's not to say the developer shouldn't be allowed to reap a share of spoils for their creations or not have them protected, just that the overall benefits are disproportionate and could probably do well to be spread across the breadth of society a little more than they are.

In terms of patents on the whole across all industries, not only are they difficult to enforce but the transactional costs are exceedingly high these days. The flip side to this is how difficult that makes it for innovative small businesses and even when they do breakthrough, they're often quickly gobbled up and the patent becomes owned by an entity which put up neither the original funding nor research. It's not a massive problem but there's something to be said for class gaps in patenting and it's hardly surprising the majority of holders come from affluent families.
 
2+2 can easily equal 16 if we make it so.

It may not make sense, but it feels good.
 
2+2 can easily equal 16 if we make it so.

It may not make sense, but it feels good.

There are consequences for denial of reality, particularly that of a mathematical and scientific nature.
 
Last edited:
If this paper had been published a handful of people would have heard about it. Now the paper is on every single right wing blog and publication. Give it another week and this will be on Fox likely Tucker Carlson.

I hope not.

The NYJM editorial board voted by at least 2/3 majority to remove the paper. The reason is that it should have never been accepted in the first place. It only was because of some bad behavior by an editor, Igor Rivin, who solicited the paper after the Math Intellegencer withdrew.

This paper and Ted Hill's story won't stand up to scrutiny. Take a look at the developments on Tim Gowers' blog if you're curious.
 
B nn b
I hope not.

The NYJM editorial board voted by at least 2/3 majority to remove the paper. The reason is that it should have never been accepted in the first place. It only was because of some bad behavior by an editor, Igor Rivin, who solicited the paper after the Math Intellegencer withdrew.

This paper and Ted Hill's story won't stand up to scrutiny. Take a look at the developments on Tim Gowers' blog if you're curious.

I looked at his blog post.

A few things
When applied to humans, this model is ludicrously implausible. While it is true that some males have trouble finding a mate, the idea that some huge percentage of males are simply not desirable enough (as we shall see, the paper requires this percentage to be over 50) to have a chance of reproducing bears no relation to the world as we know it.
https://gowers.wordpress.com/2018/09/09/has-an-uncomfortable-truth-been-suppressed/#more-6390
Men historically reproduced at a rate of 1 for every two female who reproduced historically. This is not necessarily because men could not find a mate as much as men did the hunting and war fighting so they it is as much as they were likely to die off. So for tend of thousands of years the 50% number was in fact accurate.

Then later down the author begins to conflate the math model with social policy and there are some . I don't really find his anecdotal arguments about his math students very convincing either.

Hill presented a model to try to explain what has already been observed in nature. I don't know why Gower's is attempting to downplay those undisputed observations with anecdotal evidence about math professionals.



That said all of this is besides the point. Assuming that Hill is being truthful and no one is saying he is not most importantly the owner of the second journal what is important here is how this were handled. Half of the board did not threaten to quit because the math was not ground breaking enough. They threatened to quit because of the subject matter.

Also to me likely the worst part of this is how the paper was removed and replaced with another paper in the exact same place with no notice or explanation. That is like rewriting the history books.
 
Last edited:
Remember when leftists accuse the right of being anti-science? Pot calling the kettle black

Except rightists are anti-science when it comes to the much more concrete topic of climate change. On the other hand, human intelligence is an extremely complex topic. Finding out how our brains behave is absolutely daunting and very little true understanding has been reached.

Finding out why and how heat, air, humidity, etc., behave is much simpler and the science there is much more firm. Furthermore, climate change science is about 10,000 times more important to society than finding out why there aren't more female physicists.

So for the 334,440th time, a false equivalence by the right has been had.
 
B nn b


I looked at his blog post.

A few things

https://gowers.wordpress.com/2018/09/09/has-an-uncomfortable-truth-been-suppressed/#more-6390
Men historically reproduced at a rate of 1 for every two female who reproduced historically. This is not necessarily because men could not find a mate as much as men did the hunting and war fighting so they it is as much as they were likely to die off. So for tend of thousands of years the 50% number was in fact accurate.

Then later down the author begins to conflate the math model with social policy and there are some . I don't really find his anecdotal arguments about his math students very convincing either.

Hill presented a model to try to explain what has already been observed in nature. I don't know why Gower's is attempting to downplay those undisputed observations with anecdotal evidence about math professionals.



That said all of this is besides the point. Assuming that Hill is being truthful and no one is saying he is not most importantly the owner of the second journal what is important here is how this were handled. Half of the board did not threaten to quit because the math was not ground breaking enough. They threatened to quit because of the subject matter.

Also to me likely the worst part of this is how the paper was removed and replaced with another paper in the exact same place with no notice or explanation. That is like rewriting the history books.

People are in fact disputing Ted's story. Both Benson and Amie are, for instance.

You have no idea why the NYJM withdrew the paper - you only know Ted's claim. That claim is in dispute now by several editors (some privately). Ted claims it was politics, but he has no idea why many people voted the way they did.

I don't want to debate the merits of the paper overall, but it simply isn't an interesting mathematical work. Perhaps it could be in a bio journal. I'm not an expert in biology and it could have nice insights in that area. But for it to appear in a credible math journal is scandalous. That position is the consensus of every serious mathematician who I have talked to who had looked at the paper (around 10 people now). Most likely many people voted because of this reason (in my opinion).
 
People are in fact disputing Ted's story. Both Benson and Amie are, for instance.

You have no idea why the NYJM withdrew the paper - you only know Ted's claim. That claim is in dispute now by several editors (some privately). Ted claims it was politics, but he has no idea why many people voted the way they did.

I don't want to debate the merits of the paper overall, but it simply isn't an interesting mathematical work. Perhaps it could be in a bio journal. I'm not an expert in biology and it could have nice insights in that area. But for it to appear in a credible math journal is scandalous. That position is the consensus of every serious mathematician who I have talked to who had looked at the paper (around 10 people now). Most likely many people voted because of this reason (in my opinion).

I appreciate that you may won't to stay anonymous but what do you exactly do for a living without giving away private information you might not want to share?

Also is removing a paper in the manner it was removed normal? If so then there is a issue with the whole industry. If not then that gives Ted's claims some merit.
 
I appreciate that you may won't to stay anonymous but what do you exactly do for a living without giving away private information you might not want to share?

Also is removing a paper in the manner it was removed normal? If so then there is a issue with the whole industry. If not then that gives Ted's claims some merit.
No, it is not normal. But then neither is accepting a weak biology paper in a semi-prestigious math journal. So overall, I'd say the situation hurts his credibility, as those In the know, know that the only way this could have happened is that the handling editor misbehaved or didn't do his due dilligence (most likely misbehaved, since the issue is not that complicated or subtle mathematically). Still, I'd prefer they publish a retraction rather than just removing. That would be more normal, but probably the managing editor handled that detail (imo poorly).

As for me, I'm a professional mathematician at a big university. I'm not friends or collaborators with anyone mentioned above.
 
How about less science denial on "all sides"?

Science may be the best thing we've got going for us, so it's tough to be too cynical here. Where it gets dangerous is making policy based on conclusions that the research doesn't actually support. That leap

The public image of it is being undermined and used to wield partisan agendas dealing in pseudoscience, misinformation and complete falsehoods. Science itself is an objective, apolitical, global enterprise of accumulative knowledge and continued investigation into the nature of the Universe that checks and balances itself by adhering to a stringent set of principles (or method). The entire edifice rests upon this impartiality and verification through experiment.

It could really probably do with a hard line redefinition and strict inclusion of only mathematics*, physics, chemistry, biology and their respective sub-fields and interdisciplinaries. That would be quite enough, there is so much horseshit thrown under the umbrella of "science" these days that is actually of an economic, political, social, moral and/or historical nature. It's far too heavy on personal bias, opinions, feelings and emotions to belong in the same arena. It doesn't work, it simply won't do.

* It technically isn't although the relationship between pure mathematics and physical science is far more symbiotic than popular impression would seemingly have it; they have and do inspire and drive developments between each other. It's not all too different from the relationship between theoretical and experimental physics.
 
No, it is not normal. But then neither is accepting a weak biology paper in a semi-prestigious math journal. So overall, I'd say the situation hurts his credibility, as those In the know, know that the only way this could have happened is that the handling editor misbehaved or didn't do his due dilligence (most likely misbehaved, since the issue is not that complicated or subtle mathematically). Still, I'd prefer they publish a retraction rather than just removing. That would be more normal, but probably the managing editor handled that detail (imo poorly).

As for me, I'm a professional mathematician at a big university. I'm not friends or collaborators with anyone mentioned above.

If the issue is not complicated why is Gowry strongly disputing the findings of the paper. I personally don't think the findings are that complicated but the fact Gowry strongly disagrees with the finding makes it appear that there is room for argument. That leads to the position that this is complicated maybe not mathematically but at least in some manner
 
Religion and science arent inherently at odds though.
Only true if religion doesn't try to make truth claims about the empirical i.e. science's realm (and if science doesn't try to make claims about the unfalsifiable and metaphysics i.e. religion's realm)
 
Some tidbits from Sweden that is in the forefront for gender studies:

* Government funding for a three year long study of the trumpet as a male marker and how it affects its surroundings.
* Monkey bars, swings, sand boxes and bicycles can be very detrimental towards gender equality, while playing in the woods creates gender equality.
* There is currently a push for removing the labels of mom and dad from the children's' shelf at preschools so it becomes more inclusive.
* Preschools in Uppsala (major town) should teach the kids about how a gender is given to children and not by birth.
* Tax payers money to an artist that pees on herself on a stage in a quest to challenge norms.
<{clintugh}>
 
Some tidbits from Sweden that is in the forefront for gender studies:
* Monkey bars, swings, sand boxes and bicycles can be very detrimental towards gender equality, while playing in the woods creates gender equality.
Playing in the woods creates new babies.
 
Only true if religion doesn't try to make truth claims about the empirical i.e. science's realm (and if science doesn't try to make claims about the unfalsifiable and metaphysics i.e. religion's realm)
N74X.gif
 
Historically, men have reaped the benefits of education first. Women are still denied access to education in many countries today.

Someone took a census of educated professionals and decided to extend that data to the innate capabilities of learning in gender, global access to learning aside. Doesn't sound like a productive use of time to publish conclusions that there are innate barriers to education in biology, that's some phrenology skull-size measuring "The Afrikaans brain is naturally underdeveloped" creepy doctor bullshit
 
Back
Top