Yes, yes. More orthodox scientism. But I defy you to find the role you think “logic” or “sound reasoning” plays over a selection of various scientific discoveries. Seriously. I want to see it. Because if you can isolate that element, if you can push aside the whole bustling collective of what you’ve called, as if ancillarily, “components,” in order to foreground the pristine, uncontaminated activity of “Reason” with a capital R—as if what it means to reason doesn’t vary across networks, relative to contexts, according to background assumptions, epistemic communities, material conditions, political dispositions, worldviews, and so on—then you’ll single-handedly resolve the questions that continue to motivate science studies, as well as the problems that beset the scientists that would have their discipline aimed at the truth objectively, as if such an ambition could work independently of the fragility of the material construction of actual networks, a construction within which reason plays a role, but one internal, immanent, and not transcendent or foundational to the trajectories of the discontinuities, mediations, and transformations themselves.
The rest of your post isn’t even worth replying to, so much bad folk psychology about masculinity and femininity, so much narcissism about the promise of (metaphysical) rationality.
This bores me. I take it you don’t do much reading, James. You strike me as the kind of guy that thinks books are written to brainwash us, that education is designed to get us to follow the right leaders, and that the only real way to get at the truth is by buying into your outrageously hilarious metaphysical system, complete with its own set of idiosyncratic capitalizations (as if Science itself—if it existed at all—will suffice, after all these years, to save us). And you’ve been at this for quite some time now, no? If you had the truth, if it unveiled itself to you and you alone, then how tragic a fate it is to confine its brilliance to the humble threads of an amateur philosophy forum. It’s almost too much to take seriously. No, it is too much to take seriously.
Sorry Onto, I must say that you read James wrong. He is highly intelligent, good insights and presses good questions that are controversial. I don’t agree with him, yet he does make one think harder. He is a good guy inspite of his views.
Onto merely proves that simple truth frustrates him more easily than his persuasion tactics and ploys frustrates me. Shiva has great fire to breath… until he attempts to spew it at Vishnu.
Does a football team NEED an equal number of males and females?
Does the game of football NEED an equal number of males and females?
Does art NEED an equal number of males and females?
Does Science NEED an equal number of males and females?
What determines whether something NEEDS and equal number of males and females?
Thinking of the jungle family, the male must brutishly run through the brush and brambles chasing or struggling with food or foe. The female stays at home base carefully watchful of threats to the child and home ready to call out for support. One developed a long sighted, goal oriented brain and manner, one of conquest. The other developed a broad sighted brain and manner, one of alertness, tenderness, and submission. They both have their own blind-spots. The team is what allowed them to rise above the jungle. If they had been equal, there would have been no homosapian, because neither has the capacity to do the entire job needed.
So which leads and which follows?
Which makes which kind of decisions?
Which defines success?
“Neither” means “no team”, “divorce”, and the jungle wins.
When there are only two making an equal vote, the progress is untenable. Businesses fail when they are 50/50 owned.
To say that Science needs more women is to presume that a thing has need of a gender (injecting sexism).
To say that Science needs an equal number of males and females is to say that Science needs to make less progress.
No. I don’t think that You promote handicapping education.
I think that untethered, you unwittingly promote handicapped education.
James… What science needs is less confirmation bias. Think about that for more than one second and you might actually understand the point of the OP. Not that I expect miracles.
Sorry, but that one kind of earned it for you.
And you might want to more deeply consider the grammatical tool called “a sentence”.
All of physics (for example) and mathematics, including the statistics you so enjoy misapplying to mislead the naive, is Reasoning.
It is one thing to decide to abandon and destroy Reason so as to bring down Babylon, but it is quite another to decide to do it without Reason.
It is one thing to be liberated from an oppressor and quite another to be liberated from reasoning (feminized). In your case, onto-, if you were to more carefully apply reasoning, you would discover that you are on the wrong side in accord with your own interests. That is why they go out of their way to destroy reasoning and intelligence, so that people can be so easily persuaded against themselves. When you were young and naive, you got inspired against your self (and not by accident). It is a world war against intelligence. You might want to ask yourself more carefully why you are opposed to intelligence in humanity.
…been there, done that.
All observations are founded in Reasoning. It is Reasoning that tells you that it is your own toes you see wriggling in front of your face. And I realize that it takes some longer than others to realize it, but keep working on it.
Well granted, but the argument has been that the reason there are fewer women in Science is that professors in Science have a bias toward males. The stats used to sport that are anything but scientific, and to me are very obviously a ruse. The cause of any “bias” is entirely ignored. The definition of “bias” is ignored. Every decision is a “bias”, else why make a decision at all. The presumption is that the males are choosing males only because there are more of them and thus persuading the choices by their male-bias (regardless of any good reasoning they might have).
So “fewer in number of women” is actually the issue to those promoting this particular propaganda piece.
What Science needs is more clear reasoning and rationale. And despite political liberal’s claims, reasoning or logic is NOT gender related nor subjective at all. It is only presumed and promoted to be so as to give room for irrational persuasion.
The REAL issue is not “what Science needs”, but rather; “What do People need?”
Well, thats fine, so say that to those promoting that.
Me: Women are passed over more often than not for jobs they are qualified for because they may become pregnant and have to quit eventually ( mothers should only raise kids meme)
Same type of meme gets bright young minds to drop out of the education system to care for children they had. This includes male and female.
Such beliefs and monetary needs are a waste of minds that could be used and are needed. Curtailing youthful hormones and urges, changing beliefs of what a gender should or will do is what I have been saying. Wasting assets or possible assets for these reasons is just blind stupidity. Allowing more to actually try to enter can only be good. Science and others can only benefit and so need to make changes. Science does need to make use of potential assets that are being tossed aside.
I understand that such is exactly what you have been shown with all kinds of alluring propaganda (just like the “study” mentioned in the OP). The problem is that almost NONE of what is being shown is truth, but merely persuasion tactics. So how would you know know one way or another what is actually needed by anything or anyone? I see the solution for this and every other problem beset upon Man as much simpler and void of the horrendous confusion and suffering brought about by such beguiling tactics.
I would agree with that. But when using an asset is detrimental to the goal, it isn’t really an asset, merely a temptation to demise.
And again, it isn’t “what Science needs”. It might be what people need. But note that no one is asking that question. Such a question exposes too much of the persuasion tactics, because the answer is, “Clarity”.
Clarity by itself is ambiguous. Clarity for or to who, what and why?
I fail to see how qualified minds would cause issue if anything more communication and ideas, thoughts, etc… would give quicker more solid solutions.
As the minds are qualified that would include discipline/control.
Darn near all of us have stared at a problem without seeing the solution until someone comes up and gives insight or solution. You would have figured it out eventually, maybe.
Time and generations can be better used on new rather than old. Two minds rather then one.