You may have it backwards. The proven discrimination against women in science suggests that scientists are subject to a pervasive confirmation bias. The OP suggests that this bias favors a mechanistic, reductionist approach that many people, male and female, feel is more “male”. We’re talking physics, astronomy, molecular biology, etc., which is mistakenly (IMO) given prominance over, say, “less fundamental”, “softer”, disciplines such as ecology, biology, etc. Fewer women in science, then, is evidence of the problem, not the problem itself necessarily. It’s a pretty reasonable thesis.
Why is there a bias that confirms men to science and not women?
Because men are actually interested in science, logical, rational, smarter, and anti social.
Now, why does “science” need more women, in light of the fact that men dominate the field, and have never needed nor asked for women in science? Why now, all of a sudden? Why didn’t women start being scientists 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago, why not? Why now? What have women been waiting for, for centuries? For millenniums?
Maybe it’s time for you and others to just give up. Women were not originally interested in science, when science first began. And they’re not interested now. And they never will be interested.
Maybe you can’t push a circle block through a square hole, no matter how hard you try to force it. It just doesn’t fit.
Like women in science.
Lol.
Your knowledge of history, women and how these connect in education, rights to education, parenting, work, etc., is astonishly absent. Really quite amazing.
Does this mean my position is that women will be as interested in science as men? No.
Does this mean that women were kept out who were interested? Sure. That’s not even controversial.
Women have moved into many professions once the barriers dissolved that they were not in before.
Perhaps you live on another planet.
…and men kept out.
Look at it this way,
If you were to do the exact same “study” except rather than “Women”, you used “Lesbians”, I bet you would get the exact same results. And your reasoning would lead you tothe inescapable conclusion that,
“Science needs more… Lesbians”
Or if you used “Gay men” instead of “Women”, again you would get the same results, leaving you to have to proclaim,
“Science needs more… Gay men”.
Can you honestly say that you do not see the problem with his picture?
Nietzsche proposed “Gay Science” specifically to destroy Science, just as he proposed to destroy all thought, all religion, all social structure, everything - Nihilism. And you are selling it as;
“Science needs more… Nihilism.”
lol Nietzsche as nihilist? Have you read a word of his? Do you even take yourself seriously? This is just too much. You’ll also want to learn how to use semi-colons. It’s kind of embarrassing.
Oh, I said nothing of him knowing that he was a nihilist.
He merely proposed to destroy all structure.
…and that IS a nihilist. And inspires its opposite, Nazism.
…and you might want to actually learn how to think… about the topic itself.
Not only does the ellipsis require three dots, but it is used to indicate the omission of a word that isn’t necessary for the legibility of the sentence.
You misused the ellipsis twice in the quoted sentence. I do fancy myself a thinker of the sociology of the sciences. Unclothed, unequipped, I don’t think reason itself has any content. You disagreed. I claim that reason works by following the trajectory of a given series of discontinuities. You disagree. Fine. I asked for you to describe to me its operation across more than one scientific discovery, but you shrugged off the task. You offer nothing but platitudes. I’m bored. Your claim that Nietzsche proposed to destroy all structure is, of course, laughable. You really mustn’t have read much of him. That’s okay, not a lot of people have. But don’t feign understanding; you’ll only end up embarrassing yourself.
If you can’t avoid comments like this:
or this:
then it would be appreciated if you take your conversation to mundane babble or something.
Unofficial warning to both of you. This is silly bickering, not philosophy, not science.
Onto-bias, nobody cares if James wants to use 2 periods for an ellipses or if he uses semicolons differently than you. Seriously, nobody gives a shit. You are clearly a very intelligent thinker and I’m glad to invite you to this forum (you’ve been here exactly a month yesterday!), but this thing with his ellipses is shallow, petty, and it reflects badly more upon yourself than him.
Everyone has their own writing quirks. Some writing quirks actually get in the way of reader understanding; others do not. James’ quirks do not. Whatever James’ flaws are, poor writing is not one of them. You are very bright Onto and this is below you.
FJ: Apologies. Something about James rubs me the wrong way. I stooped:
I’ll stop being petty.
Onto-, I had a reason for using only 2 dots rather than 3, but that reasoning is beside the point. And I’ll concede to your pedantic concern of using 3 (which I have always preferred anyway).
Back to the topic:
You strike me as someone who would prefer to not be suckered into believing something that wasn’t true. But is that true? Or do you prefer the behavior of allowing yourself to be suckered perhaps just to get along (“go along to get along”)?
Sucker == vb. to take advantage of one’s naivety so as to persuade into false belief or self-defeating behavior.
If one thinks men and women are essentially the same, then having more women in science would no add anything. But if one thinks that men and women are different, then it is possible that more women scientists would give focus on certain areas or certain kinds of hypotheses that would not be focused on or focused on as much. Those who think women and men are different tend to think women focus more on relationships, symbiosis, interconnection, whereas men focus on more on individuals, competition, difference and separation. It seems to me science has focused more on hypotheses (and then the supporting evidence of research) related to women’s hypothetical focus. Whether this is caused by their being more women scientists or not, I do not know. I suspect it is part of the reason.
Men lack intuition - in comparison to women. I believe this is the main difference that could make a different in science as well…
If your are trying to adjust Science, what Science needs is that inner honesty, integrity that formed it in the first place. It has allowed itself to become a religion and thus ego driven with public image being its primary concern. No amount of added intuition can fix that. Feminizing it would make it far worse.
What Science needs is honorability; integrity, honesty, openness, not more vanity and pride.
What do women, blonde women, bring to science that normal men do not?
Intuition? Is this your final answer? Why does science need “intuition”? What is intuition? It sounds irrational. And I don’t think science needs more irrationality and emoting.
Does science need drama and catfights, bitchiness and pettiness? If yes, then women are a great addition.
It sounds irrational. Do you notice the irony in your own process?
It doesn’t matter how irrational I am. It matters how irrational women are, who supposedly, need to do science.
ROFL Males are rational more than women?? That is funny. Its rational to make super weapons that can kill the world?? Its rational to even conceive the idea?? Oh sure we need more of that in science… cripes!
‘rational’ by definition:
– based on or in accordance to reason or logic – (Oxford dictionary)
what else than rational is it to construct weapons?
– based on sensible practical reasons instead of emotions– (Thessaurus)
Kris, set the case that you would have the ability to construct a ‘super-weapon’. Then imagine that somebody would offer to you lots of money, carefree future and protection for your family, whereas refusing to sell your knowledge could be extremely dangerous for you and your family. What would you do? Would you give up your ideals and be as corrupt as everybody would be?
And to get back to the topic: What would happen if you mix rational thoughts with emotions? Total confusion, which does’nt help anybody.
Oh yes, maybe some women are made for science; I wish them good luck to get a job. But ‘female skills’ are not relevant for science, I even see them as a contradiction to it. It’s just not the point, claiming that science needs more women.
D’accord!