How totally politically correct. Whether there are fat tails or not, what aspects of the distribution might mean, what might cause the tails, what socio=economic or nurturing or genetic or any other factors might be applicable....none of this can even be discussed.
Yesterday, I tried to get someone else to explain to me why they think that real scientists are being kept from researching these issues, and also why they think that it's appropriate to debate them before scientists actually come up with support for their arguments. No reply.
So, I'll try you.
Do you really have any evidence that real scientists are not being allowed to research the parameters of male and female abilities? If so, please post it.
Also, can you please post actual scientific studies that show that women are genetically unsuited for science? If so, please post them, especially ones that demonstrate a consensus among scientists on this issue.
Because Mary's point all along has been that real scientists are not in support of Summers' argument, but that he's using pseudoscience, or as we discussed yesterday, pop psychology.
You can't make a valid scientific argument by claiming that "everybody knows" that something is true. For example, "everybody knew" that blacks were inferior mentally, but that turned out to be mere prejudice masquerading as science.
In fact, someone (maybe Lindy) linked a movie review of "Hotel Rwanda" that explained that the basis of the Hutu-Tutsi rivalry was 19th century British prejudice in favor of Tutsis against Hutus masquerading as science, claiming that Tutsis were genetically superior to Hutus. These arguments are very dangerous. Millions of people were killed in the 20th century because they were alleged to be genetically inferior.
That's not "political correctness," that's history.
Sneering about "political correctness" may make you feel superior, but I'd like to see some evidence for your argument. |
