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.
You know Cern is a hotpsot for conspiracy theories about them opening up portals to other dimensions and bringing in extra dimensional beings and demons and whatnot. And Lucifarians are the most misogynistic people on the planet, so....
An elegant reply to my question. I didn't think anyone around here would attempt an answer, so kudos to you. My question re the size of an atom vs the size of a molecule was a deliberate over-simplification, since I don't expect that most CD politics members to be scientifically literate. Your response was a pleasant surprise!
Molecular size can be assessed in different ways. The molecular weight is easily calculated from the molecular formula. Also a simple atom count can be seen as a crude measure of molecular size. Other descriptors often used are molecular volume and molecular surface. As you noted, the molecular surface can be defined as the Van der Waals surface of the molecule, assuming all atoms to be spheres defined by their Van der Waals radii.
Before we even begin a discussion of my atom/molecule question (I originally asked it of my Dad when I was 6 and my scientifically educated Dad seemed to think that was the funniest question he'd heard in quite a while ), we would need to come to some mutual consensus as to the definition of the property "big" when used to describe matter at its atomic and subatomic levels. For example, does "big" describe density? Is it the Connolly surface rather than the Van der Waals surface? Should we add to our reply some mention of molar refractivity since it is a more precisely defined measurement?
I know! Let's ask the greatest stable genius of all time to explain the answer to us. No doubt, Mr. Trump will have the correct reply on the tip of his tongue. He'll shake your hand for being man enough to bring it up while I will be sent off to Salem to be drowned as a witch because I dared speak the word "molecule" aloud.
Your intelligence depends on your specific genetics and environment. Racial groups differ by average IQ, but race does not determine any individual's level of intelligence. All races contain a spectrum of IQ levels from idiot to genius, although distributed differently.
Race ~= proxy for "specific genetics and environment" though - those are literally the things that unite "racial groups".
If you want to be more technical about it, the "racial group differences" observed in the distribution of IQ are an artifact of those "specific genetics and environment".
So that is what Damore referred to, and its what everyone familiar with the topic of race and IQ apprehends about the comments.
People who aren't familiar enough to have an "informed opinion" typically think race = skin color. Which is of course not true. Skin color is just another artifact.
Race ~= proxy for "specific genetics and environment" though - those are literally the things that unite "racial groups".
If you want to be more technical about it, the "racial group differences" observed in the distribution of IQ are an artifact of those "specific genetics and environment".
So that is what Damore referred to, and its what everyone familiar with the topic of race and IQ apprehends about the comments.
People who aren't familiar enough to have an "informed opinion" typically think race = skin color. Which is of course not true. Skin color is just another artifact.
I also wonder if the people who are able to advance science like physics aren't working with more than just intelligence or IQ level. They might have an IQ 140 or higher but have a talent in this area at a level even beyond their given IQ. I believe Europeans have something other than just their not too shabby IQ that one could simply label creativity and independent thinking.
I also wonder if the people who are able to advance science like physics aren't working with more than just intelligence or IQ level. They might have an IQ 140 or higher but have a talent in this area at a level even beyond their given IQ. I believe Europeans have something other than just their not too shabby IQ that one could simply label creativity and independent thinking.
There are several "specialties" within general intelligence. For example, spatial reasoning.
Who invented physics? Nobody, male or female, "invented" physics. Physics just is. Yes historically the study of physics has been mostly a male pursuit and for many reasons. And the funny thing to me about this post is that I highly doubt the original poster cares one bit about the science of physics, or biology, or chemistry, or any other sort of hard science. Just another misogynist dig at women. Yep, we wimins are just out to make things hard for you mens folk!
I think you're touching upon an epistemological question you don't fully understand the extent of.
Russia doesn’t care about affirmative action or political correctness and I promise they will not wait till we catch up to them in physics when they move ahead of us...and they will.
So far, the only thing I've come to understand from your thread is that you believe women and minorities lack the intellect to actually design a valid scientific study and come up with sound results and statistical proof that points to the validity of the lead researcher's original hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Since I've written nothing even remotely like the bold I have to think you're reading comprehension is poor. As for the quiz and demand for credentials... please. Just assume I'm a high school dropout and try to make on point responses to my posts.
I live only to please. Your writing resembles that of an educated person more than it does the awkward prose of a school dropout. This only serves to make much of your stance all the more dismaying. Here are a few of your "points" that are egregious enough to warrant a specific reply:
Congrats to Dr. Strickland. Hopefully her prize is deserved and not an affirmative action Nobel. It's a shame that, given the political situation, we have to wonder about it.
Among Dr. Donna Strickland's scientific accomplishments BEFORE she won the Nobel:
Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship (1998)
Fellow of The Optical Society (2008) and served as its
vice president (2011) and president (2013)
Editor of the journal Optics Letters from 2004 to 2010
If the above awards and recognitions are not enough for you, her Nobel Prize in Physics was for the invention of chirped pulse amplification for lasers which led to the development of the field of high-intensity ultrashort pulses of light beams. Because the ultrabrief and ultrasharp light beams are capable of making extremely precise cuts, the technique is used in laser micromachining, laser surgery, medicine, fundamental science studies, and other applications. It has enabled doctors to perform millions of corrective laser eye surgeries
Yep, I'd certainly question a 3rd rate scientist who got the Nobel Prize for a discovery that now allows doctors use laser eye surgeries to give millions their eyesight back. No, you're not questioning if she actually has "the intellect to actually design a valid scientific study and come up with sound results." No, not YOU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Predictably, the guy has been punished for making this obvious point, but it's good to see more men pushing back against the incessant feminist propaganda.
The point is that if we want to keep having nice things; like abundant food, medicine, comfortable houses, fast transportation, gadgets, and the electric power to run it all for a population approaching 10 billion, we'll need white and Asian men to keep doing science. Feminists, if they had their way, would bring it all down.
Yeah, God help the study of science if MEN aren't the ones doing the research. Turn science over to the women's libbers and we all know what will happen. They'll all become climatologists/physicists who discover that the earth's atmosphere now contains over 400 ppm CO - a concentration last found 800 million years ago when 97% of the earth's species went extinct. But who cares if we can still grow crops if it means that our concern forces down Exxon's profits. Goldman Sachs would be infuriated if that happened. Oh wait - male scientists have already discovered climate change. Never mind.
Excerpts from the transcript of your "excellent video"
I’m Andrew Klavan for Prager University.
"Feminism has attempted to bully us all into accepting an obvious lie: the lie that men and women have the same powers, talents, proclivities and desires and that, consequently, any discrepancy in their professional paths is due to bigotry and must be corrected by force of culture and law.
You believe a statement that women must "bully" the other half of humanity into accepting that we have the same innate "powers, talents, proclivities," etc as men do. Granted that IN GENERAL, most men have more physical strength than most women do. However, this does not extend to cognitive function which is the same - some researchers say even greater - in women as compared to men.
Sure sounds like you are advocating that men are smart and women should just shut up about it.
Mr. Klavan of the highly conservative and faith based Prager University concludes his YouTube performance with these scintillating observations:
Feminism denigrates masculinity in men by relentlessly calling us “toxic” for our flaws rather than appreciating our natural qualities of energy, risk-taking and leadership. But it also denigrates femininity in women, working to replace most women’s commitment to relationship and child-rearing with male obsessions such as career status and strength.
Let me propose a different narrative that has the advantage of possibly being true. Insofar as men and women are physical creations, their central purpose is the production of more human beings. Women are therefore fashioned in body and mind to make and nurture children, and men to protect and support those children during their relatively long maturation period.
Frankly, I don't understand what is meant by "feminism denigrating masculinity in men by relentlessly calling us “toxic” for our flaws rather than appreciating our natural qualities of energy, risk-taking and leadership." Is Klavan trying to imply that feminists consider energetic men flawed? If so, his statement is completely false. I don't have a problem with a person of EITHER sex who just so happens to be an energetic leader. However, the "risk taking" thing is a bit of a loaded term. Risk taking to the point of taking every drug you can buy in the street (for example) is not a good quality in anyone.
The final paragraph is just a somewhat more erudite way of repeating the old saw that women are better off staying home with the kids and making sure to always be barefoot and pregnant. Meanwhile, only her husband Bubba is allowed to go out and have fun shooting his semi-automatic and discovering the double helix.
Has my response been "on point" enough for you now?
I live only to please. Your writing resembles that of an educated person more than it does the awkward prose of a school dropout. This only serves to make much of your stance all the more dismaying. Here are a few of your "points" that are egregious enough to warrant a specific reply:
Among Dr. Donna Strickland's scientific accomplishments BEFORE she won the Nobel:
Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship (1998)
Fellow of The Optical Society (2008) and served as its
vice president (2011) and president (2013)
Editor of the journal Optics Letters from 2004 to 2010
If the above awards and recognitions are not enough for you, her Nobel Prize in Physics was for the invention of chirped pulse amplification for lasers which led to the development of the field of high-intensity ultrashort pulses of light beams. Because the ultrabrief and ultrasharp light beams are capable of making extremely precise cuts, the technique is used in laser micromachining, laser surgery, medicine, fundamental science studies, and other applications. It has enabled doctors to perform millions of corrective laser eye surgeries
Yep, I'd certainly question a 3rd rate scientist who got the Nobel Prize for a discovery that now allows doctors use laser eye surgeries to give millions their eyesight back. No, you're not questioning if she actually has "the intellect to actually design a valid scientific study and come up with sound results." No, not YOU.
Yeah, God help the study of science if MEN aren't the ones doing the research. Turn science over to the women's libbers and we all know what will happen. They'll all become climatologists/physicists who discover that the earth's atmosphere now contains over 400 ppm CO - a concentration last found 800 million years ago when 97% of the earth's species went extinct. But who cares if we can still grow crops if it means that our concern forces down Exxon's profits. Goldman Sachs would be infuriated if that happened. Oh wait - male scientists have already discovered climate change. Never mind.
Excerpts from the transcript of your "excellent video"
I’m Andrew Klavan for Prager University.
"Feminism has attempted to bully us all into accepting an obvious lie: the lie that men and women have the same powers, talents, proclivities and desires and that, consequently, any discrepancy in their professional paths is due to bigotry and must be corrected by force of culture and law.
You believe a statement that women must "bully" the other half of humanity into accepting that we have the same innate "powers, talents, proclivities," etc as men do. Granted that IN GENERAL, most men have more physical strength than most women do. However, this does not extend to cognitive function which is the same - some researchers say even greater - in women as compared to men.
Sure sounds like you are advocating that men are smart and women should just shut up about it.
Mr. Klavan of the highly conservative and faith based Prager University concludes his YouTube performance with these scintillating observations:
Feminism denigrates masculinity in men by relentlessly calling us “toxic” for our flaws rather than appreciating our natural qualities of energy, risk-taking and leadership. But it also denigrates femininity in women, working to replace most women’s commitment to relationship and child-rearing with male obsessions such as career status and strength.
Let me propose a different narrative that has the advantage of possibly being true. Insofar as men and women are physical creations, their central purpose is the production of more human beings. Women are therefore fashioned in body and mind to make and nurture children, and men to protect and support those children during their relatively long maturation period.
Frankly, I don't understand what is meant by "feminism denigrating masculinity in men by relentlessly calling us “toxic” for our flaws rather than appreciating our natural qualities of energy, risk-taking and leadership." Is Klavan trying to imply that feminists consider energetic men flawed? If so, his statement is completely false. I don't have a problem with a person of EITHER sex who just so happens to be an energetic leader. However, the "risk taking" thing is a bit of a loaded term. Risk taking to the point of taking every drug you can buy in the street (for example) is not a good quality in anyone.
The final paragraph is just a somewhat more erudite way of repeating the old saw that women are better off staying home with the kids and making sure to always be barefoot and pregnant. Meanwhile, only her husband Bubba is allowed to go out and have fun shooting his semi-automatic and discovering the double helix.
Has my response been "on point" enough for you now?
There are also sex differences in cognition and various forms of intelligence. These are neurological differences in the brain itself. For example, women are not as good as depth perception. They have slower reflexes. There are many many significant differences.... So your post is unsubstantiated.
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.
), we would need to come to some mutual consensus as to the definition of the property "big" when used to describe matter at its atomic and subatomic levels. For example, does "big" describe density? Is it the Connolly surface rather than the Van der Waals surface? Should we add to our reply some mention of molar refractivity since it is a more precisely defined measurement?
