"As it was his personal assessment ... I don't think that such a wide sweeping statement is entirely scientific ..."
Hmm. Seems you didn't bother to read the article JC posted or even try to determine just what it was Summers is being lambasted for. It wasn't "his personal assessment" at all, it wasn't "sweeping" and since he was referring to test scores - that is, presumably objective evidence of SOMETHING in need of investigation - it hardly seems "entirely unscientific".
Here. Try again:
boston.com
In his talk Friday at a conference on women and minorities in science and engineering, held at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers listed three possible explanations for the small number of women who excel at elite levels of science and engineering. He said he was deliberately being provocative, as he was asked to do by the organizers, and relying on the scholarship that was assembled for the conference rather than offering his own conclusions.
His first point was that women with children are often unwilling or unable to work 80-hour weeks. His second point was that in math and science tests, more males earn the very top scores, as well as the very bottom scores. He said that while no one knew why, "research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people attributed to socialization" might actually have a biological basis -- and that the issue needed to be studied further.
Several participants said that in making his second point, Summers suggested that women might not have the same "innate ability" or "natural ability" as men.
This response was interesting, doncha think?
"What he said was extremely interesting," said Claudia Goldin, an economics professor who is doing research on women in academia. "As academics, everyone should look under every rock they can find for the answers to difficult problems. Sometimes the rocks are large boulders and sometimes they have scary things under them."
Danged economists - they tend to be so annoyingly rational don't they? Sociologists, OTOH...
Mary C. Waters, chair of the sociology department, said students upset about Summers' remarks have been coming to talk to her. She said his comments left her speechless.
"Has anyone asked if he thinks this about African-Americans, because they are underrepresented at this university? Are Hispanics inferior? Are Asians superior?" she said. "That's the road he's going down and I don't want to see any university go down that road."
Never mind that he never suggested women were inferior in any way. Some people just like to make up things to be offended and pissed off by.
As for your post...
"I have seen studies of brain anatomy and testing that suggest that some times of cognitive skills are more common in men than women. I think this is in the category of saying such things about blacks (negatively) or Asians (positively). Without actually conducting potentially unethical experiments, it is conjecture. It may even be true, but coincidental or due to complex effects. Regardless, it is a minefield and a person holding a political academic position should be circumspect regarding such statements."
Are you really taking the position that scientists should not study differences in brain anatomy or function between men and women? That doing so is "unethical"? That science should avoid "minefield[s]" - i.e. controversial topics?
How enlightened of you. |
