OT: You couldn't make it up

[The Natural Philosopher]

Do you really think it is?

[RJH]

Yep - thought it was pretty common knowledge. Outside this NG though :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Only in Islington

And even there its only an opinion.

Not a fact

I mean how 'feminine' or 'masculine' can physics be?'

[Tim Streater]

What are you noodles talking about?

[whisky-dave]

Some things are more obviously 'feminine' or 'masculine' like ships....

There she blows.....

anyway it;s it the foreign langauges that like to equate things as being male or female when there's little or no need. I blame the EU ;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well, exactly.

RJH claims its 'common knowledge' that 'science is gendered'.

I can only assume his/her/its world is bounded by Womens' Hour and radical feminism.

[RJH]

A simple way to think about it might be: would scientific knowledge be the same if the key scientists had been women?

Of course, that's not what happened (or is happening, with a few notable exceptions) - hence the Q. Nor can it be known - it's based on a supposition.

If you want to progress that supposition (and I doubt you would), you might want to evaluate women's place in (whichever) society. Any 'O' level sociology text book, or reading a decent paper, would help there - doesn't need specialist understanding.

I happen to think our body of scientific knowledge toady would be different if, say, women had a more significant role in science.

That article tries to explain how and why (I think, not read it properly).

Not really, just common sense.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes. Marie Curie being a prime example.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Successfully Brainwashed

Dozens of women in science. They don't end up coming to different conclusions unless its part of 'I am an oppressed femimist' 'womens studdies' game.

[RJH]

Dozens :-). Like within those lists of anthropogenic environmental change deniers you helpfully link to from time to time ;-)

[RJH]

And just think what she might have done if there weren't any blokes in her way.

[The Natural Philosopher]

You are more brainwashed than I actually thought.

I suppose you mean Judith Curry?

[The Natural Philosopher]

A lot less, since at least half her work was on te shoulders of other researchers, mostly male.

You really are seriously clinically deluded. Do you honestly think that hard science would come up with different hypotheses just because some 'female brain' was involved?

Do you think string theory is 'inherently male' or something?

Go out and meet some female engineers, chemists, physicists and mathematicians.

The nice thing about them is that they are just like the male ones.

If you are not thinking with your dick.

And then learn to face up to your sexism and bigotry.

[Tim Streater]

Why wouldn't it be?

The only place where such would be relevant would relate to any society in which women's education was prevented or severely restricted by law.

I doubt it. Those who were really good made it to the top. Marie Curie has been mentioned, and then there's Jocelyn Bell and Rosalyn Franklin also from a previous generation. When I was at Uni, we were taught Spectroscopy by Lady Anne Thorne, and no one thought twice about that either.

[RJH]

Do you not think there's an element of institutional influence? Anywhere? And bias within that? And where do you think that bias leads?

Maybe. And maybe different findings. And maybe not hypothesis driven.

No. 'It' isn't. String theory doesn't have a gender.

They can be, in a good way, I've no doubt. But they're less likely to be in that position than men. It really is simple.

[RJH]

Mmmm. I'd have to ask you to think first about inequalities in, say, British society, and why they're there. If you think there is no material inequality of, say, opportunity, then we can leave it there. But for now:

Leaving aside the effectiveness of law (let's assume it's perfect and enables equality of access on grounds of gender - the EA 2010), do you think indirect discrimination might be an issue?

Of course. Many quite astonishing achievements by women. But why not half?

Another point is the way that science can become privileged and focussed. Again, I think, that's what that article was driving at. It's not saying anything's 'wrong' necessarily - that's for the reader to derive. Just different.

[Tim Streater]

What institute are you referring to?

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am sorry that snip wont do, you have basically declared yourself a sexist and a bigot.

You have declared that the world as revealed by science, will be different if women reveal it.

[Tim Streater]

When I interviewed for my place at Uni in 1964, the bloke was quite open that they were trying to increase the number of women, by lowering the standards a bit. This was for the physics course. So when I went up, there were 120 men and 20 women. Of that, 10 men and 10 women didn't make it into the second year.

My recollection of the girls at school was that there were some clever ones on the science/maths side, but not that many compared to languages and the arts generally. Why? Well, I've no idea.

If you want to know why not half, how about doing some research into it, and then coming up with some hypotheses. So far, all you've done is start with a fixed idea of what the reason is. That's no good at all and will just get you labelled as a biased politician. Get some data first, then hypothesise, then test your various hypotheses against predictions. No other method is any good.

[The Natural Philosopher]

When I was an engineering student there were 999 males and one female. Approximately.

Today, at post grad level anyway (which is what I am more involved in) Id say its around 60:40