Current Events > Since the Google memo is indisputable, Salon declares that *science* is flawed.

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Science has a progressive bias!"

"Here's several peer-reviewed articles showing there's marked differences in male and female psychology."

"Ugh! What does science know anyway?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/08/evolutionary_psychology_is_the_most_obvious_example_of_how_science_is_flawed.html

My education as a scientist did little to disabuse me of this simple view of science as a great unifier, as an objective means of distilling information. When skeptical members of my family argued that physics was dangerous because of nuclear weapons, I pointed out that it wasn’t science that was the problem but rather how people used it. But nowhere is it more evident that this perspective is flawed than when we consider the uses and abuses of evolutionary biology and its sibling, evolutionary psychology.

(Apparently these well-established fields of study are more damaging than nukes are...)

It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself. For example: It was argued to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains.

(the horror!)

The well-known scientist who made this comment to me is both a woman and someone who knows quite well that “peer-reviewed” and “correct” are not interchangeable terms. This brings us to the question that many have grappled with this week. It’s 2017, and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a man’s intellect above a woman’s.

Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race in tandem with the early scientific method which placed a high value on taxonomies—which unsurprisingly and almost certainly not coincidentally supported prevailing social views. The standard history of science that is taught to budding scientists is that during the Enlightenment, Europe went from the dark ages to, well, being enlightened by a more progressive mindset characterized by objective “science.” It is the rare scientific education that includes a simultaneous conversation about the rise of violent, imperialist globalization during the same time period. Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.

tl;dr: Science isn't credible because some scientists drew racist conclusions, and supported imperialism, and made all our lives better at the expense of raising the global temperature by a few degrees, and blah blah blah

This drivel is the same exact sort of whining that creationists would engage in when they attempted to discredit evolution. "But Darwin was a raaaaaacist! Hitler got all his ideas for Nazism from reading Origin of Species! Remember eugenics??? Science created the NUCLEAR BOMB!!" Throw in a bit of "white privilege" and "patriarchy" and you essentially get the rant that this dumbass vomited.

Just pathetic. Leftists, some advice: never position yourself as the anti-science group. You'll soon turn out like the religious right is: dying from extinction.
---

People throw any form of rational thoughts to defend their beliefs. That is tens of thousand years old human tradition.

The beliefs itself doesnt matter, whatever it is, any form of scrutiny they will deny
---

The left and the right are both equally guilty of this. It's human nature to be this way.
---

bump
---

Next you're going to tell me there's minor and largely irrelevant physical differences between different sexes and races you fucking monster.
---

I recall hearing something similar from someone in Africa talking about how science is racist.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

I recall hearing something similar from someone in Africa talking about how science is racist.

This?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUPsGDFZzVM
---

It's kinda funny how the roles are reversing.

Conservatives believing in science and Liberals believing in... beliefs.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I recall hearing something similar from someone in Africa talking about how science is racist.

This?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUPsGDFZzVM

There it is
---

You know science is always changing
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

It's kinda funny how the roles are reversing.

Conservatives believing in science and Liberals believing in... beliefs.

This is why "conservatives" plug their ears about climate change, abortion, gender dysphoria, lack of evidence of God, etc. This is why they continue to try and pass Christian Sharia in the South. Science and logic, my pimply ass. Citing science when it makes SJWs look dumb and when it kinda sorta not really confirms your agenda is not believing in science.

The "liberals" are just joining them in stupidity in their own way.
---

Science is flawed, it is inherently flawed because we are always learning new things. We know about about the space now is flawed because a few years from now we will learn more. However she is talking about things on a different level.

She even states this...

It’s easy to end up in an endless loop of using our prodigious scientific skills to carefully debunk the shoddy science that props up this argument. This is important and valuable work, but it’s also worth considering why this loop exists at all. Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting. In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.

BTW there is a new study that shows that woman about better programs. Using the same logic as the google guy did . I can site that study and say suggest there needs to be less males at google.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/02/18/study-shows-women-are-better-coders-but-only-when-gender-is-hidden
---

So what they're saying is: global warming is a hoax.

Got it.

Thanks for enlightening us salon!
---

Salon and Wonkette are infowars tier websites
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

Not as relevant in this particular case, but still a classic.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

tl;dr: Science isn't credible because some scientists drew racist conclusions, and supported imperialism, and made all our lives better at the expense of raising the global temperature by a few degrees, and blah blah blah

This drivel is the same exact sort of whining that creationists would engage in when they attempted to discredit evolution. "But Darwin was a raaaaaacist! Hitler got all his ideas for Nazism from reading Origin of Species! Remember eugenics??? Science created the NUCLEAR BOMB!!" Throw in a bit of "white privilege" and "patriarchy" and you essentially get the rant that this dumbass vomited.

Just pathetic. Leftists, some advice: never position yourself as the anti-science group. You'll soon turn out like the religious right is: dying from extinction.

You do realize blind faith in science is just as bad as blind faith in religion, right? Science isn't and has never been infallible.

cjsdowg posted...

BTW there is a new study that shows that woman about better programs. Using the same logic as the google guy did . I can site that study and say suggest there needs to be less males at google.

But he wasn't saying there should be less women. He was criticizing Googles methodology, not their end goal.

The email also didnt say women werent good at programming, but made the claim that, generally speaking, women had biological differences that made them less inclined to pursue tech industry as it is currently structured.

You can criticize his arguments, but at least understand them >_>
---

ThanksUglyGod posted...

You do realize blind faith in science is just as bad as blind faith in religion, right? Science isn't and has never been infallible.

No, blind faith in naturalistic assertions is not as bad as blind faith in supernatural ones.
---

The Google memo is deeply flawed but one of its key arguments was still right on the money: there's a social movement comprised of people who worship "diversity" like a religion and who believe that all individuals are literally equal (not equal under the law, but rather born with equal potential). Instead of having a rational conversation with the author of the memo, Google purged him from the company for daring to challenge their dogma, in a move that largely proves one of the author's points: Google's corporate culture is an echo chamber.

I understand why some of the topics in the memo are considered to be social taboo-- there's a dark history of this kind of science being used to justify racism and eugenics-- but until society is ready to have an adult conversation about biology and genetics, we're doomed to chase after arbitrary diversity quotas which have no basis in science.

Case in point: the "$0.77 on the dollar" statistic. When people insist that this statistic represents unequal pay for equal work, the real causes of male/female inequality go unnamed and the root of the problem is ignored.
---

cjsdowg posted...

Science is flawed, it is inherently flawed because we are always learning new things. We know about about the space now is flawed because a few years from now we will learn more. However she is talking about things on a different level.

She even states this...

It’s easy to end up in an endless loop of using our prodigious scientific skills to carefully debunk the shoddy science that props up this argument.

How strange that she doesn't provide any of the supposed science that debunks the memo!

cjsdowg posted...

BTW there is a new study that shows that woman about better programs. Using the same logic as the google guy did . I can site that study and say suggest there needs to be less males at google.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/02/18/study-shows-women-are-better-coders-but-only-when-gender-is-hidden

Nothing in there contradicts the memo. He never says that women are worse coders than men.

Did you even READ the memo?

No, of course you didn't.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

You do realize blind faith in science is just as bad as blind faith in religion, right?

"You know that faith in a process based on empirically testing hypotheses is just as bad as faith in wizards, right?"
---

Isn't Salon the left-equivalent of like Breitbart?

Mal getting upset so he can be upset.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Isn't Salon the left-equivalent of like Breitbart?

Mal getting upset so he can be upset.

Journalists on Twitter are flipping out over a single post on stormfront, but yeah, this is clearly nothing worth commenting on.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Isn't Salon the left-equivalent of like Breitbart?

Mal getting upset so he can be upset.

Journalists on Twitter are flipping out over a single post on stormfront, but yeah, this is clearly nothing worth commenting on.

So you're admitting that you're complaining to complain.

"They're complaining so I want to complain too!!!!!"
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

So you're admitting that you're complaining to complain.

Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort.

Why don't you go to the topics that are about that one stormfront post and tell them they're crying over nothing first before you do that to someone commenting on a multi-million dollar media outlet.
---

Why don't you stop complaining about the left and one of their shitty websites for a day?

Oh wait, you can't.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Why don't you stop complaining about the left and one of their shitty websites for a day?

Oh wait, you can't.

Mal_Fet posted...

Why don't you go to the topics that are about that one stormfront post and tell them they're crying over nothing first before you do that to someone commenting on a multi-million dollar media outlet.

---

Mal deflecting as usual.
---

Am I the only one who noticed the link isn't to Salon?

It's to Slate.
---

Esrac posted...

Am I the only one who noticed the link isn't to Salon?

It's to Slate.

You actually expect these people to read?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Esrac posted...

Am I the only one who noticed the link isn't to Salon?

It's to Slate.

You actually expect these people to read?

Clearly we can't even expect you to read.
---

Mal topic #10736733 on this shit.

Will he beat Admiral posting about Freddie Gray!?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Bio1590 posted...

Freddie Gray!?

I must be really behind the times because I have no idea who that person even is....

Guy who died in the back of a police car in Baltimore.
---