Science needs more... Women!

[James_S_Saint]

@onto-bios

He has a knack for getting everyone irritated and off-topic.

I have a “knack” for getting people irritated BECAUSE they are off topic and seriously hate to have to attend to it instead of their propaganda and rants.

…just like You just did.

I have asked the ONLY question that has actually been on topic;
“So exactly how is [scientific] understanding achieved and what prevents it from being achieved more readily?”

And not ONE of you cultists have had the courage to answer it.

The topic is “WHAT DOES SCIENCE REALLY NEED?”

Not one of you has addressed the actual topic. You are all too wrapped up in your propaganda speeches and ad homs.

[Kriswest]

@James S Saint

@Kriswest

Science has one true purpose and several subpurposes.
Its true purpose is to understand. Other purposes are health, money and becoming.
It needs curiosity, open minds, discipline, time, cooperation, ethics, education and minds.

“…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?

LOL, No and you know that. As in wanting to know truth and facts without society prejudices clouding paths. As in being innovative.
For health, money and becoming., well that is easy. Health = finding cures, improving health and physical of creatures, plants, earth etc.
Becoming= more than what exists physically and more knowledge/facts.
Money= sciences must have money and profit to go forward. Want to try and get any thing done without having food, shelter, equipment, etc. etc…?
You seem to pick and choose what you want and skip context.
More minds in the fields does not mean sticking people in there that are uneducated. You know this. Damn shame we can’t argue over a pitcher or two of beer.

[James_S_Saint]

@Kriswest

wanting to know truth and facts without society prejudices clouding paths. As in being innovative.

Unrestricted thought?

@Kriswest

Becoming= more than what exists physically…

???
Such as?

@Kriswest

You seem to pick and choose what you want and skip context.

…just trying to focus the discussion to a few issues at a time.

@Kriswest

More minds in the fields does not mean sticking people in there that are uneducated.

Doesn’t education instill prejudice of thought?

@Kriswest

Damn shame we can’t argue over a pitcher or two of beer.

We could close a pub every night for years.

[Kriswest]

On unrestricted thought, you are angling about ethics / morals? Breaking certain ethics and morals might be necessary. Experiments on humans and animals are the biggest issues on that. I can see few times it could be a must but, technology is making most unnecessary.
I was actually thinking about religion, politics and money.
For instance, cloning. Controversial on all those fronts. Arguments pro and con are affecting this.

Becoming evolved or adapted to new environments or being able to leave earth or leave the debilitating effects of time behind for humans and other life.Probably more avenues that I cannot see.

Education does not instill that, teaching does. How data, information is given affects this. Ways are rote, in stone, straying from it is failure. Answers that are not taught in the class are wrong.
Education is learning and exploring not answering just test questions. We must be tested but, rote answers are not the only right answer always.

Yep, I have closed a couple bars that way and one passionate argument over politics got my husband and I booted out of one. Good times

[James_S_Saint]

@Kriswest

On unrestricted thought, you are angling about ethics / morals? Breaking certain ethics and morals might be necessary. Experiments on humans and animals are the biggest issues on that. I can see few times it could be a must but, technology is making most unnecessary.
I was actually thinking about religion, politics and money.
For instance, cloning. Controversial on all those fronts. Arguments pro and con are affecting this.

How did you get ethics and morals out of that???

@Kriswest

Education does not instill that, teaching does.

@Kriswest

How data, information is given affects this. Ways are rote, in stone, straying from it is failure. Answers that are not taught in the class are wrong.
Education is learning and exploring not answering just test questions. We must be tested but, rote answers are not the only right answer always.

You’re rambling.

“So exactly how is [scientific] understanding achieved and what prevents it from being achieved more readily?”
What is the process for acquiring understanding?

[insightfoul]

These drones will continue to ignore, dodge, evade, and redirect your question, James.

Their propaganda and agenda are just too obvious. You would think, on a philosophy forum, they would hide their blatant bias and motives a little better. It’s like they don’t even try. But the interesting thing is what drives these drones to want to “force women into science, even against their will if necessary.”

And which types of women are we talking about??? Ask them this, James.

Does science need more beautiful blonde babe women, orrrrrrrr, ugly women??? Which types of women “need” to attend and contribute to science???

However, James, these drones will continue to ignore relevant questions, even the simplest of questions. Because they’re cowards.

[Kriswest]

James, Did you not see the question mark after ethic/moral? We both know that ethics and morality create restrictions on thought and application of thoughts, it is generally the primary argument pro and con.

Rambling to you perhaps. I was just trying to explain.

Why don’t you tell me what you think the answers are to your last two questions.

To keep from rambling I will use two short words: Study and procedure.

[onto-bios]

Well, I did try. Anyway. For the sake of wasting away my lunch break, I’ll parse a line of yours, James—and we’ll see if we can get anywhere at all.

@James S Saint

So exactly how is [scientific] understanding achieved […]

Scientific knowledge isn’t achieved so much as it’s produced. The condition for the possibility of that production is the construction or assembly of a network of discontinuities that render knowable the object of scientific knowledge: in the case of biology, life; in the case of anatomy, the body; and so on. In order to make, for example, the behaviour of ants not only legible, but known—in order, in other words, to turn the behaviour of ants into something we understand—we must mobilize a whole series of connections spanning fieldwork, research grants, modeling algorithms, magnifying glasses, laboratories, laboratory assistants, lawyers, journals, conference papers, and so on, assembling them in such a way that the disruptions become continuous. In making them continuous, we no longer have a meaningless pile of binders, soil samples, grant applications, paychecks, and so on, but rather a pathway that runs from the ants themselves to what we can be said to know about them. Now, taken as two static poles, the correspondence between one and the other has traditionally been taken to be the very issue at stake in matters of truth (whether scientific or philosophic). But we ought not privilege any one discontinuity or transformation over any other. Our access to reality is mediated, not only by tools, but by worldviews, not only by research funding, but by language, not only by technological apparatuses, but also by the human perceptual system itself. These mediations comprise a network, not a simply world-word or knowledge-known dichotomy. As Bruno Latour is now famous for saying: “Without mediation, no access.” Mediation doesn’t cut us off from the world, but precisely the opposite: it allows us access to it. The more discontinuities, the better. The more tools, samples, papers, laboratories, conferences, and so on, placed in between “knowing” and “the known” the closer we can bring the two together—fusing, in the last analysis, every link in the chain. The paradox is only apparent: multiply mediations and bring the object of knowledge better into view. That is how scientific understanding is achieved. This is the process of that achievement.

@James S Saint

[…]and what prevents it from being achieved more readily?"

Well, a whole slew of things, really. Anything from a faulty magnifying glass to a denied grant, to a refused publication, to a hungover lab assistant, to a questionable patent, to uncooperative ants. We can multiply the factors ad nauseum. The point is that everything needs to be in place if a series of discontinuities bringing the world of being into the realm of scientific operation is to produce knowledge. A disruption at any stage can ruin anything. Networks are fragile; they are material; and continuity has its price (literally: labs have to pay for electricity, after all).

Is that something of a starting point for discussion, now? anon, if you’re just seeing this, refer to my last message where I tried in some small way to engage your posts—in good faith. This is all in good faith, really. I hope you can reciprocate the gesture, James.

[Moreno]

@insightfoul

But the interesting thing is what drives these drones to want to “force women into science, even against their will if necessary.”

Force more women? We have already had a historically recent trend where women no longer met force to keep them out of science, and so many more became scientists.

[insightfoul]

Prove that there are more women scientists.

Working in a laboratory, following the instructions of a scientist, doesn’t make you a scientist. It makes you the assistant of one, which is what women are, assistants, followers, not leaders. You have to be a leader to be a scientist.

I already said this, but I’ll say it again for good measure. Science includes taking risks. What risks? You ask? Setting up an experiment, with a hypothesis, is a risk. You could be wrong. Science is about objectively gauging whether hypotheses are right or wrong. You have to be objective. You have to allow proof or disproof. If information keeps collecting that do not prove your hypothesis, then either your hypothesis is wrong, or your experiment is inconclusive.

Women are, objectively, physically, inferior at taking risks, compared to men.

Women only take “risks”, after men have made it safe for them. For example, let’s use women in MMA. Men have made MMA “safe”, into a popular sport, where referees are used, and the sport is generally safe. It’s not as deadly as it could be. It is still somewhat risky, compared to most other sports.

But it was only after the sport has become popularized, made safe, that women entered it and now compete in it. Women did not lead the way.

Many even ask “what are women doing in MMA?” and this question is justified. What, the fuck, are women doing in MMA??? It’s unfeminine. It’s unappealing. It’s like women’s NBA. Nobody cares. Because women are less competitive, less violent than men. It looks facetious and fake. It’s fake competition.

Women in sports is even, perhaps, disgraceful. It’s an embarrassment.

Same for women in science. What, the fuck, are women doing in science???

But I know all the responses to this. You’re a “misogynist”. You’re “backward” for thinking this way. “What century do you live in?” “You sound like a butthurt virgin boy who lives in his mother’s basement who can’t get laid.” “You have a small penis.”

You’re not “progressive”.

I’ve heard it all, shut up. Despite all the arguments, people aren’t addressing nature, what it is in the nature of men and women to do, differently, that separates “men” and “women” apart, to begin with.

But we live in an age dominated by liberals and egalitarians. Therefore, these are impossible questions to answer,or even address, or even to pretend like they even exist.

They’re not questions. They’re “curriculum”. They’re precedented.

Men and women are equal, and there is only one race, the human race.

Why aren’t more kittens in science? Science needs more… kittens, and blacks, and androids. I’m with James. I support him.

[James_S_Saint]

@Kriswest

Why don’t you tell me what you think the answers are to your last two questions.

To keep from rambling I will use two short words: Study and procedure.

@onto-bios

we must mobilize a whole series of connections spanning fieldwork, research grants, modeling algorithms, magnifying glasses, laboratories, laboratory assistants, lawyers, journals, conference papers, and so on, assembling them in such a way that the disruptions become continuous. In making them continuous, we no longer have a meaningless pile of binders, soil samples, grant applications, paychecks, and so on, but rather a pathway that runs from the ants themselves to what we can be said to know about them. Now, taken as two static poles, the correspondence between one and the other has traditionally been taken to be the very issue at stake in matters of truth (whether scientific or philosophic). But we ought not privilege any one discontinuity or transformation over any other. Our access to reality is mediated, not only by tools, but by worldviews, not only by research funding, but by language, not only by technological apparatuses, but also by the human perceptual system itself.

Note the distinction in the answers. One lacking critical details. The other, a list of the components lacking the actual process. Both lacking in structure (a masculine attribute).

An understanding is a foundation for the construct of knowledge/truth. A foundation must be very solid if the knowledge is to reach its greatest height. The foundation must be rigid and “concrete”, else the building will fall, even without a wind. That foundation is commonly referred to as “Logic” applied to epistemology with “sound reasoning” dictating the rising architecture.

The goal of Science is not merely the under-standing, the foundation, but rather the entire mountain of Truth. And Truth is formed by;
A) Consistency - Logic, a masculine attribute (thus the historic male priesthoods even in Science)
B) Comprehensiveness - Consideration of all things, a slightly more feminine attribute (thus Mother Mary in Catholicism and Athena as Wisdom)
C) Relevance - Usefulness, both/neither masculine and feminine - the end-users, the God-wannabes.

The masculine forms the rigid structure upon which the building is to be constructed. The masculine dictates the framework within which the building is to be kept solid from bottom to top. The masculine seeks to fill the building with all that is needed. The feminine seeks to fill the building with all that is wanted.

The masculine designs a solid building. The feminine asks if the building is truly complete. The feminine cannot easily see the logic required for structure, thus she can only ask, suggest, and propose. The masculine is ill at ease with departing from the certainty of the logic and design (“ego”). The feminine is ill at ease with the potential dis-compassion in what she cannot clearly see as truest need (temptation of desire - vanity). Neither can knowingly dictate the true completeness of need.

And thus you have Ahdam, the damming up of the loose spirit, and Eve, the extension beyond the presumed completeness of the structure. Both presuming from their limited sight; the masculine narrow and disciplined, the feminine broad and free. What became of Ahdam and Eve?

But the question is, “What is needed?”

What is needed is a third element, neither strictly masculine nor feminine.

If you blend both masculine and feminine together, what do you get? You get something that is neither strictly masculine nor feminine. You get Seth. What became of Seth? Do we really need to reenact that scene?

The problem with mixing is that mixing is a corruption of both. How can they be adjoined without one defeating the attributes of the other? The ego and vanity were the problems, not the attributes. By what means can the two cooperate such as to remain truly humble to the other’s qualities while not being corrupted by the other’s limited sight?

The process of Science is in question when considering its needs, not how many males vs females.

And not that anyone asked, but;
Rational Metaphysics is that third element, a process neither strictly masculine nor feminine, neither Jewish nor Gentile, neither Buddhist or Taoist, neither Capitalistic nor Communistic/Socialistic, neither Western nor Eastern. RM is sight to the short sighted and breadth to the narrow of mind, subduing both ego and vanity, ultimate consideration and ultimate rigidity combined without corruption of either. It is the endgame to the 10,000 year old struggle between the God-wannabes. And men vs women is irrelevant.

But the truth of that claim is naturally restricted to only those who learn of it.

[Kriswest]

ROTFLMFAO!! Apparently it works only in your words. You lack perception, comprehension and depth… but, you are intelligent and I like your attitude even though… your ego blinds you.

[James_S_Saint]

…and so says the feminine.
What does the masculine say?

More of one means less of the other.
Unfortunately asking a male in a feminized world, doesn’t in itself tell you much.

[Kriswest]

James you and others like you are far too competitive to succeed in sciences except on a monetary level. And that gets what?

[Moreno]

@insightfoul

Prove that there are more women scientists.

Seriuosly? you don’t know that women could not even enter University earlier in history, and then when they could were steered away, those that were interested, from the sciences. The 20th Century saw enormous Changes in the amount of working women scientists. Conservatives may see this as bad, but it is hardly contested as a fact. There are more women than there were earlier in history in many fields that were traditionally only male. You’ve noticed this, or?

[James_S_Saint]

@Kriswest

James you and others like you are far too competitive to succeed in sciences except on a monetary level. And that gets what?

There are no other people like me.

And “too competitive to succeed”?? What does that mean???

Ah, I know what it means;
Science needs more… Superior Competitors. Statistics have shown that there are far fewer superior competitors in Science than losers.

Ah but of course, scientists are biased against intelligent competitors.

[James_S_Saint]

@James S Saint

…and so says the feminine.
What does the masculine say?

More of one means less of the other.
Unfortunately asking a male in a feminized world, doesn’t in itself tell you much.

Let’s say that the masculine disagrees with you, then what?
Or even if he agrees with you, then what?
Popular vote?

If the masculine and the feminine in Science’s Vatican agree that the Moon is made of cheese, then it must be true?

If you get more women than men, will the Moon become more or less cheesy?
And what do you do with a split vote? Who wins? The majority?
If most Scientists believe the Moon is made of cheese, then it must made of cheese?

What happens when there is no majority? Lowest common denominator?
Science has determined that the Moon is made of either cheese or potatoes, so apparently it is made of cheesy potatoes (Quantum Physics’, “wave-particle”). That scenario has already happened in Science.

Science needs MORE of That???

[Kriswest]

James have you ever played or followed golf?

[James_S_Saint]

@Kriswest

James have you ever played or followed golf?

Yep.
Why?

[Kriswest]

Well the women have tees at a shorter distance than the men right? Its a handicap.
I think its stupid and unfair.
You seem to think that I promote handicapping education. I have not. Nope never. I have said remove the social stigmas and keep women and men from procreating at young ages. I have not in anyway shape or form said, implied or thought of handicapping education. Allow more in, but, if they fail they fail. If they achieve success then just how in the hell is it going to do what you fear?