OT: You couldn't make it up

[charles]

in my case 300:3.

[RJH]

For example, in the context of medicine, the BMA, various government departments, health trusts, universities, contractors and local authorities.

[RJH]

Did me :-)

Nothing of the kind. Reread, and cite that declaration.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

Me: "Yes. Marie Curie being a prime example."

You: "Maybe. And maybe different findings. And maybe not hypothesis driven."

If its not hypothesis driven, it isn't science.

You are sitting there redefining science in terms of your utter bigotry and sexism.

It's plain for anyone to see.

[RJH]

Plenty of theory/evidence to suggest why - I provided some sources earlier.

I haven't given a reason - I've simply put it there as a possibility. Of course I have an opinion on 'why' or I wouldn't have commented.

And on your 'hypothesis' device, that's unlikely to work to your standards in social science. Never has, partly because it's non-replicable.

[RJH]

Anecdotally, although I'm not involved in hard science (more applied social science like GIS and Environmental Science), I'd agree. Although that varies by mode - far more men in FT. Some good stats here:

[Sam Crean]

Because not as many women are interested in some particular branches of science.

And because women didn?t get employed in some of the fields that saw quite a bit of science done on the side, particularly with lots of the science that was done by clergymen as a hobby in the past. There were far fewer women employed as clergymen in the past and so far less opportunity to do that sort of science as a hobby.

We saw the same thing with famous women as royalty and politicians.

[RJH]

Notwithstanding the general point I've tried to make elsewhere, I've given it a quick read, and would have to say it does look a little odd! I might ask one of my colleagues to give it the once over - but the problem is that it's a right hotch-potch of social, political, environmental, economic and natural science.

Some serious points though:

[The Natural Philosopher]

1/. How many men do you know who have been sexually harassed and have reported it? 2/. WTF has your bigotry with respect to women got to do with whether science in innately 'gendered'?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Social science is not science.

I'd agree. Although

[Tim Streater]

Social "Science" is all hand-waving and surmise, then, is it?

[RJH]

What exactly is my 'declaration'?

Well, if (as they say) that's your truth, fine.

[RJH]

What's anything got to do with people I've known?

Lost me now. I was simply citing some statistics drawn from the article, and commenting. If you've anything to add, be my guest. My bigotry, as you have it, is another matter.

[pamela]

If you look at that Clancy study, you can see it's smothered in statistical techniques but unfortunately the data the stats is based on is very shakey.

For example, it doesn't give precise definitions or categories ("We do not report precise categorical descriptions, as some descriptors are distinct and, occasionally, entirely unique, jeopardizing anonymity.")

What's more, it seems to allows overheard remarks to be considered as a form of assault ("the target is not the only one to experience harassment and assault")

What does this sort of thing mean:

"First, incivility, chilly climate, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are biopsychologically intense experiences for the targets, witnesses/bystanders, and perpetrators."

Chilly climate? Huh? How did that get in there?

Anyway, if I had been conducting that study I might have chosen to disregarded one source to avoid a sample size of 666. :-)

[RJH]

That's quite standard in research of this kind for ethical reasons.

They're trying to express examples of nasty behaviour. A 'chilly climate' might not be considered nasty by many, but can lead on to consequences that might not have been predicted. I would have backed that phrase up with examples of where it had been cited - but they do flesh it out later in the paper, and I got the jist of what they meant.

It leads I think to to their classification system.

On the one hand I do think it's clumsy, and could have drawn from other research with larger samples. On the other I can understand - there's a clamour for this sort of 'rigour' that has the appearance of objectivity.

I thought that was strange! The snowballing sampling is a tricky area in that work too. And of course it's in the US - I think the posters here, who work/ed in science and report no problems for women, are from the UK.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well if you want to be the humpty dumpty, fine, but that's a lonely road., The rest of humanity agrees on common coinventeiu9on as tio teh meaning or words.

You are a troll, and a poor one at that. Since its now obvious to all, its time for a plonk.

[whisky-dave]

and Ada lovelace or was it Linda I get the two confused ;-)

[whisky-dave]

Maybe not differnt but thought of in a differnt way and discovered in a difernt way.

No they aren't by definition.

If they were just like male ones we wouldn't need seperate things like this.

and there's plenty of others dedicated to women but I've yet to see one that's just male. I suppose that's because all others are male.

It works both ways as it should sexism shouldnlt be just one way.

That's why men & women should be equal so we have 1 100 metres omlypic final NOT 2 whoever wins in the fastest male or female human. That should go for all sports treat women equally.

[charles]

Ada came from the next village - Linda didn't (as far as I know)