“…health, money and becoming”??? 
Curiosity and open minds as in;
“Maybe this is true.
Maybe this is true.
Maybe this is true.
Maybe that is wrong.
Maybe that is wrong.
Maybe that is wrong.”
Right?
Good enough answer to me, though the mention of “components” strikes me as an overly reductionist thing to specify, in such an otherwise general statement. In other words, Jane Goodall didn’t study what the natural world’s “components” are, and she is a great scientist.
anon, you don’t know Jane Goodall as I do. Goodall isn’t all good (the name was chosen for an obvious reason).
But if you fell in love with a chimpanzee, would Science need more… Chimpanzees?
The issue is specifically what is it that causes Science to progress toward is true goal and thus also what is it that hinders such progress.
The word “understanding” has been raised as its goal, understanding pretty much everything, a “TOE”.
So exactly how is understanding achieved and what prevents it from being achieved more readily?
What are you talking about? I fell in love with Jane Goodall? WTF? Because I’m using her as a specific example? I’m interested in science, always have been. I have opinions about what is positive in the scientific community and what is deficient. With the tiny bit of time I have to try to communicate something here, I attempt to at least hint at what I have to say. And this is how you respond? Did you even catch the fact that there was some content to my post, that directly addresses the OP, which you still refuse to address in a normal, straightforward way because of your political obsessions?
Talking to yourself again, anon?
I asked a far more direct question pertaining to the subject, not your distractions.
“My hero is a woman so Science needs more women”, makes for a pretty pathetic argument.
Science doesn’t need more pathetic arguments does it?
So now try answering the relevant question.
That’s what you think my argument is? For real? Is your head really that far up your ass?
“Einstein was a great scientist, therefore Science needs more old men!”
Why are you even talking about Jane Goodall?
One of the things hindering it is the distractions concerning personal heroes.
4th grade reading comprehension won’t cut it here, James.
Why don’t you read what I’ve said about her and find out?
“Listening” (reading, in this case) promotes understanding. In my own case, I admit that understanding your inability to listen would help.
Or are you just a propagandist, terrorizing this thread with your continuous off-topic rants until the topic disappears completely? If so, congratulations. You’ve succeeded.
Then I suggest that you get back in school and try harder.
How typical. I ask directly about what Science actually needs, and you say that I am off topic because you want to propagandize women into Science… while accusing ME of being off topic and wanting to propagandize.
How do you imagine that all of your cult became the same like that (perhaps for another thread)?
But of course, you still haven’t answered the ONLY relevant question that has been asked;
Are you saying that what Science needs is to not answer that question and just hire more of your sexists and racists?
Women hinder science. They don’t help science.
Women don’t have the brains for it. Women should stick with raising babies, changing dirty diapers, and socializing about stupid bullshit all day with their nagging girlfriends. Leave science for men, who actually do things, actually are imaginative, and actually contribute.
Science is about taking risks, by performing experiments. Women don’t take risks. Therefore, women are inferior at science, and should stay out, for the benefit of the whole world.
The only women who are most interested in engineering, math, and physics, are ugly young girls who no men want to have sex with, even if we were blackout drunk.
Lol, that’s more on-topic than at least most of James’s posts.
James, you don’t actually know what I think about this topic. You don’t know whether I think more women should go into science or not. I think you should pause and consider this. You are so wrapped up in your own preconceived story that you don’t have a clue what’s happening right in front of your eyes.
Well if you would stop your sexist propaganda tour and actually say something about the topic as I have asked several times now, maybe we could see what you think about the topic.
Why are you so afraid of answering the obvious question at hand?
Bump!
Been there, experienced that, yup.
What’s wrong if white males have an advantage? I’m a white male, I live in country populated by white males. If I move to China, they’re not going to roll out the red carpet for me, let me tell yah. Science was invented by white males, after all. I think blacks and females should get their own… science… type thing.
This is very confused. First off, there is no Science with a capital S. There are only scientific communities, communities that disagree, that take different things for granted, and that may never reach a consensus. Now, taken collectively, these communities certainly have been sexist, historically speaking. What this means is more than the simple fact that women don’t get research positions. Consider the fact that for quite some time now, evolutionary-agricultural theories granting agency to women have been jettisoned in favour of hypotheses that distribute that agency differently. Instead of testing the hypothesis that women domesticated plants by cultivating gardens, agricultural researchers verified (with some substance) the hypothesis that plans were domesticated by shamans who cultivated them for their ritual effects. It took a recognition of the fact that the better hypothesis was going untested to finally replace one with the other. Of course, the scientists of the shaman-hypothesis weren’t consciously trying to keep women out of the community: that’s exactly what it means for the institution to be sexist; they aren’t even aware of their own preconceptions and of the way those preconceptions colour their research. This is called by many philosophers of science the irreducible entanglement of fact and value, or, in contemporary (French) technoscientific-sociological parlance: the entanglement of science and politics. There’s no way to separate science out from value or politics—what would that even mean? There’s no unmediated access to reality. All we have are starting points, assumptions, background beliefs, networks, constructions, communities, consensus, and so on. Out of that cacophony, we produce our images of the world. Sometimes they work for us, sometimes they don’t. But no image is good enough to proclaim objective, project that objectivity backward onto the process of its construction, efface the work of that construction, and claim for it the status of valueless truth. Put differently, in the words of Kuhn, facts are pregnant with theory. There’s no getting around it. We’re humans. It’s how we work.
Now, anon—and I do apologize on behalf of my gender for James’ hard-headed dismissiveness—re: the Goodall article you linked: if it is in fact the case that women come equipped with different values, perspectives laden with different dispositions, then scientific studies (notice how I avoid referencing Science with a capital S) will indeed benefit from the inclusion of more women. I can find the actual study if need be, but in the agricultural example to which I refer above, it took a group of women to uncover the covert sexism at work in the shaman-hypothesis and in so doing to pave the way toward the better theory.
Hopefully that might motivate some real discussion in this topic. From what I’ve seen so far, James has to be one of the most persistent trolls on the site. My god, the man is just indefatigable.
Yep, James is a “troll” for saying that more old men should be scientists.
The only people who aren’t “trolls” are people who force women into science, possibly even against their will.
No, James is a troll for comments like this one:
He has a knack for getting everyone irritated and off-topic.
Don’t know who those people are, has someone really suggested that? Or is this a strawman, punches him in the face. We can actually see what happens when women are not violently discouraged from becoming scientists. More become scientists than Before. From there one can argue if this resulted in more holistic or somehow paradigmatically different theories and hypotheses. I Think it did, though I Think this is pretty hard to prove.