Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm saying that there are factors other then just genetics. Environmental factors cause adaptations, so it isn't as simple as just "hard wiring." So it's not denying science to say, "It's more complicated than that." How is that a denial of science? Are there differences in brains? Yes, there are. Are they clearly on gender lines? I don't know. It doesn't seem clear cut to me that it's just hard-wired ability. How a society behaves has a lot to do with it. How a culture defines masculine and feminine influences measurement over time. Where does all that end and the pure scientific explanation for brain function begin? I don't know. I will make NO absolute statements, as I am not a scientist.
And once again I've never said it is genetics only - only that genetics is indisputably plays a role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
I think YOU need to read your original post. You asked about brain function, and said you had "never seen anyone deny or ignore the science that genetics plays a role in your structural traits..." It's right there. You said it.
Reading back, that is fair critique. I am genuinely trying to figure out why people deny science in some cases, but accept similar science in other cases. So I am literally trying to process this as I go and it isn't easy with all of the red herring arguments and strawman arguments that I get on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
On this, wanted to specifically address this but I don't agree that it is "okay" for people to say that women have an advantage.
You honestly don't think that women have any biological advantages that men don't have or generally don't have to the same extent?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I noted earlier as did another poster above me that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that men are worse at multi-tasking than women.
Fair enough, but there have been scientific studies where women do in fact outperform men in multitasking.
And to my point, I've never had a student deny the study.
Additionally there is newer evidence that male and female brains operate a bit differently, which might lead to differences in performance in some areas for each gender - including potentially multitasking for women.
I also do not think that women, in general, are more intelligent than men.
I think that many of the issues you have with the so-called denying of science is that the science you are trying to prove is not 100% related to heritable genes - like intelligence or an affinity for math and other academic subjects. Even in the case with the dogs being stronger in some skills or activities, that is not based 100% on biology or genes.
IMO I think that you are a very one way or no way sort of guy/gal it seems and you want others to think that way and when they don't, you believe they are "denying science" when they are not. They just are acknowledging the scientific fact that genes are not 100% at play in regards to behavior, intelligence and even some physical biological examples like "fast twitch muscles" and other being good at particular sports.
There are environmental things in play for all of these.
Now in regards to actual biological differences - as noted, men and women are biologically different genders. This is because of their inherited genes. Of course, even with people there are outliers (i.e. hermaphrodites and/or intersex persons) but biologically people have specific genes that make them a male or a female. There are specific genes that make a dog a dog and not a cat.
How a being is reared, their nutrition, their culture (and what is valued or not valued) basically their environment are huge drivers of behavioral traits and IMO all scientists agree that environmental conditions are a factor in a whole swath of behavioral and physical traits.
I think there is an emotional response, because I have been very clear that genetics is one factor, but clearly a factor.
Perhaps, people feel that they will be viewed as "inferior" if another group has a biological advantage over their group? So they lash out against science that indicates as such? But given the norms of society and PC culture, people won't speak up as much when it benefits a group seen as historically persecuted, but will if it doesn't?
And perhaps that is why the poster who claimed to be scientist in this thread reacted in a very unscientific method? She feels threatened so to say by it? And perhaps I could have reacted nicer, but anyone can claim to be anything (I am an astronaut! jk) and she was making illogical points that scientists shouldn't be making, unscientific logic, and attacking.....leading me back to my original question...why do people reject science the way they do...even to the point where self-proclaimed scientists are denying and ignoring science on this thread.
At least when science is wrong its eventually corrected and is right. Unlike the creationists who won't change their views at all despite a mountain of evidence.
Liberals invariably enforce the science of evolution (as do I)
Evolution recognizes differences in the internal organs of different races.
Liberals insist this does not include the brain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Is this what you mean?
Don't worry about PC. As an old time misogynist, you can take your testosterone and go get lost in left field where you belong.
As a woman in the sciences I had to put up with BS like this, but I thought such attitudes were dying out. Guess I was wrong. So what were YOUR grades in differential calculus? Organic chemistry? Physics? Did you win a scholarship to study climatology at a prestigious university?
Posts like this are what cause women to join the feminist movement. And I'll thank you to keep your ignorant fingers off my ecological sampling techniques.
You know you're beautiful when you're angry.
I can boast of none of the above but I can go for hours and always keep a woman happy.
What are you wearing?
/sarcasm.parody
"Science" is the term for the process that verifies observable fact. Though, most often, when people refer to "science" they are referring to the (claimed) observable facts and not the verifying process (experiments).
For science (from here on out referring to both the process and the resultant conclusions or claimed facts) to be credible, it must be able to show that its process for observing and verifying its conclusions was methodologically sound and to what degree. This is a multistep process that rates "science" according to its "level of evidence".
In short, "denying (and validating) science" merely boils down to critiquing its level of evidence. If you can show that the level of evidence is weak, the you have effectively denied science in a manner that few credible scientists would be able to disagree with.
Much science touted as fact often enjoys a weak level of evidence. The problem merely lies in the fact that so relatively few people, especially with a microphone, are trained to critique science on its evidence.
Further complications occur when science is suppressed because the results were not what the funding source was hoping for (absolutely unethical but it happens constantly), and when academics (trained scientists working in academia) are threatened with unemployment should they refute the wrong type of "facts".
If you want to be reasonably skilled in evaluating science, merely take a graduate level research methods course. It'll teach you how to evaluate science so that the "experts" aren't those with all of the priesthood power that enables them to inform society of the facts without being questioned.
Believing scientists without being able to evaluate the evidence yourself is, ironically, an act of faith. Not science.
Thus most people, most of whom are not scientists, who encourage others to "believe science" are encouraging you to have faith is something that you cannot verify for yourself.
This process is most commonly a characteristic of religion. Society will always have its religions. The Left merely wants you to drop yours and take up theirs, for whom the priesthood is comprised of scientists who are not completely free to evaluate and make conclusions in regard to the facts due to the political correctness that is guided by Far Left political aims. Other factors, like funding sources for their salaries and experiments, also warp the purity of the science community's conclusions.
Today’s progressive movement is actually socially authoritarian.
They seek dominion over issues such as food, the environment and education. And they claim that their policies are based on science, even when they are not.
Absurd opinion piece by right winged scientific writers.
Of course you will find silliness on the left. It is a standard human accompaniement. And yes sometimes they get carried away.
But no anti-vax is not left wing. Nor is the anti animal testing groups. The simply are from different slices of the population. And the anti-vax has a right wing flavor though the group is broader than that.
And silly things like plastic knives will either lead to good plastic knives or the use of non disposal ones.
The shame is the organized and politicized stuff like the right wing anti-science on global warming. I am not a full believer in global warming even though I think it quite clear it is occurring. What we do not know is how the integrated system will respond. It would however seem wise to limit it to the extent that we can without huge dislocations to man kind...why take the chance?
Your post is riddled with strawmen and red herring arguments. Are you really a scientist or pretending to be one?
No one said that biological differences between men and women are the "best explanation" for the differences between careers. Does it not play a role in it? Are you telling me that there are no biological differences between genders accounting for the differences in males dominating the lumber jack field?
Yes, women have testosterone too. A real scientist wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. Do you honestly think that men and women have testosterone at similar levels? Do you honestly think that differing testosterone levels don't play an impact on anything with the body?
Yes, height is genetic and environmental. I have already pointed this out. Name a single country where men don't have a height advantage over women on average. Genetics NOT environment is why men have a height advantage over women when talking about broad populations. If you were a scientist I wouldn't have to spell this out for you.
Genes explain why men are taller than women on average within the same environment.
Bizarre to whine about strawman and red herrings and then post an entire article irrelevant to my post nor do he one I quoted.
Second, yes I am a scientist, oceanographer to be precise but my main teaching assignment is introduction to research. So yes, your logic is flawed and all over the place.
What all this boils down to is a strawman you have set up, that there is some sort of mass movement that rejects science when it comes to sexism. That is just plain old not true. What is true is that someone who claims to be in a position to judge scientific merit is making meaningless statement like “women are better at multitasking†as if they were fact. The only decent study to find a statistically significant difference is one that measured the effect of multiple task on stride. You are extrapolating so far beyond that as to be meaningless
That is the problem with your entire premise. Extrapolation as ridiculous. Sure there are things in which the average man may differ than the average woman but given the fact that man of these change over time shows how little it is biological. For example with all your male brain nonsense I am sure you think men are better at STEM. Meanwhile for the last decade or so women are graduating with stem degrees at higher rates than men. Do we want to preten women are better at stem than men? And that they developed a genetic change in the last generation? Or is it more likely a combination of factors with genetics making almost no difference?
That is the problem with your entire premise. Extrapolation as ridiculous. Sure there are things in which the average man may differ than the average woman but given the fact that man of these change over time shows how little it is biological. For example with all your male brain nonsense I am sure you think men are better at STEM. Meanwhile for the last decade or so women are graduating with stem degrees at higher rates than men. Do we want to preten women are better at stem than men? And that they developed a genetic change in the last generation? Or is it more likely a combination of factors with genetics making almost no difference?
I don't know. But what I do know is that, for a scientist, you are conveniently ignoring the very obvious mass of independent variables that would likely inform the politically charged conclusion that you are trying to guide non-scientists to agree with.
You are abusing your station via rhetorical negligence, while standing in the name of science, to an unsophisticated audience.
You are precisely the problem, and are why increasing masses of people are going to eventually call BS on your lot. Enjoy the fallout.
Your post is riddled with strawmen and red herring arguments. Are you really a scientist or pretending to be one?
No one said that biological differences between men and women are the "best explanation" for the differences between careers. Does it not play a role in it? Are you telling me that there are no biological differences between genders accounting for the differences in males dominating the lumber jack field?
Yes, women have testosterone too. A real scientist wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. Do you honestly think that men and women have testosterone at similar levels? Do you honestly think that differing testosterone levels don't play an impact on anything with the body?
Yes, height is genetic and environmental. I have already pointed this out. Name a single country where men don't have a height advantage over women on average. Genetics NOT environment is why men have a height advantage over women when talking about broad populations. If you were a scientist I wouldn't have to spell this out for you.
Genes explain why men are taller than women on average within the same environment.
You have to be careful with all that. It is undoubtedly true that men have size and muscle mass on women. Simply a fact. But does that really suggest the men make better lumberjacks? I doubt it. Women are actually stronger than men per kilogram and would likely climb better and be better at tight maneuvering and probably more agile and able to save and protect themselves better than the bigger and stronger men. So as long as the tools don't get too heavy females might indeed be better than men.
Perhaps another example. Fighter pilots. I would think there is every reason to believe young females would make the best fighter pilots. Weight, strength to weight and agility and perhaps some brain functions would favor small women. But what do we use? Older men in general.
And it would seem clear that that Blacks have some level of physical superiority to Whites. Now part is certainly environment, but clearly part is genetic. There is an interesting experiment where a trainer could watch the force diagrams of people making a jump shot and pick out virtually all the Blacks.
So we men and women are different but much of it is lost in the overall scatter among the individuals.
I am by training an EE and by experience a physicist, engineer and computer scientist. I am also a reasonable capable inventor and theorist in a couple of areas. One the interesting things I found in working with certain concepts is it took three of us to actual do the task. I would think an approach up but found it virtually impossible to communicate the concept. Had a good opposite number who was a Chinese American logic designer. He would reduce the thing to a logic and microcode implementation. That would then go to a marketing tech writer of Ashkenazim roots who would explain to the rest of the world what we had.
Bizarre to whine about strawman and red herrings and then post an entire article irrelevant to my post nor do he one I quoted.
Second, yes I am a scientist, oceanographer to be precise but my main teaching assignment is introduction to research. So yes, your logic is flawed and all over the place.
Your post was factually full of strawmen and red herring arguments. I wouldn't expect that from a true scientist that is why I am skeptical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Testosterone is found in both men and women it just varies in its level.
These are both illogical points based on what I was saying and I would not expect that from a scientist.
On testosterone:
It is obvious that testosterone is in both men and women - some women even have higher levels than some men.
However, men on average have significantly higher levels of testosterone. Or do you deny this science?
Increased levels of testosterone impact things like muscles and the brain. Or do you deny this science?
Since we are not comparing individuals, but rather large groups, I am perfectly scientifically based to say that men have more muscles on average due in part to biological causes --> higher testosterone averages in men.
As a scientist, what is your logic here with mentioning that women have testosterone too...it contributes nothing and refutes nothing of what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Height is a function of both genetics and environmental factors.
On height:
It is obvious that height is a factor of both genetics and environment. Yet men still have average heights taller than women. Sure some women are taller than some men - we are talking about averages in EVERY single country on earth here.
Are you suggesting that men have a different environment than women in every single country and to such a significant degree that leads to men growing multiple inches taller everywhere on earth on average...which gives them a height advantage?
Are you denying genetic research, which accounts for men being taller?
As a scientist, what is your logic here? We are talking about broad groups globally - not individuals. You must agree with me that differences in height between men and women on average is in good part biological - no? So what is the point to bring back up environment when comparing height of the genders? It is illogical and not what you would expect from a scientist when discussing broad groups like I was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
What all this boils down to is a strawman you have set up, that there is some sort of mass movement that rejects science when it comes to sexism. That is just plain old not true.
A strawman argument is when you pretend someone made an argument that they didn't make. Where did I do that?
I am not saying that this is a "mass movement" as if it were happening globally everywhere, but I am saying factually I do see this and I am asking why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
What is true is that someone who claims to be in a position to judge scientific merit is making meaningless statement like “women are better at multitasking” as if they were fact. The only decent study to find a statistically significant difference is one that measured the effect of multiple task on stride. You are extrapolating so far beyond that as to be meaningless
My point is, I have never had a student challenge the recent studies when they say women have an advantage in some areas.
Perhaps, the science is still not 100% firm on multitasking and women, but there is more and more evidence showing differences within male and female minds - including on multitasking no? Or do you reject the recent research?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
