4 ms·
> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible. It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same leve
by discombobulate 10y ago
> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible.
It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same level of Nietzsche saying philosophers derive philosophy from who they are.
2) You've listed three such subjects yourself: CS, engineering, physics. Not such a high hurdle when there are multiple elements in the set. Which you left out. Strawman. Or is it OK to be dishonest in your arguments, and then claim I have a lack of rigour?
> you have to identify attributes of technology that serve as evidence for those preferences
No I don't.
I can say males & females have preferences for different activities, therefore it's plausible that they have a preference for one job over another.
I could point to Sweden and say a country with the least inequality has the largest differences in occupation.
There's no way to be more definitive without additional information. Thus, my position is, it's unclear what's creating the differences in a number of fields. It could be biological, or it could be systematic discrimination (which is falsified somewhat by Sweden). So, I lean towards biological differences.
I understand your position as:
There are no preference differences in most 'high-status' jobs, therefore there are no preference differences universally.
That doesn't jive with Sweden. And isn't self-evident.
You demand proof that a number of fields are different in a way which is unattractive to women. How about you supply proof that they're the same?!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 10y agoParaphrasing: "Computers are different from all the rest of science. That's why there's so few women in the field." How are computers different from the rest of science? "They just are!" That's not an argument. "You're a dishonest jerk!" I think I understand where you're coming from now.
- discombobulate 10y agoComputers aren't science. Computers compute. Science seeks to error correct toward truth. I've laid out my logic. If you don't understand any of it, I can expand. If you're unwilling to understand it, that's on you. You've addressed none of my points. And made no attempt to rephrase my actual position. If you don't like me saying you are dishonest in your arguments don't be dishonest in your arguments—or explain how you weren't being dishonest. > I think I understand where you're coming from now. Do you? I want to critique your arguments, your epistemology, and the way you argue. You've tried to make it look like I'm making untenable claims, can't justify what I've said, and then an insult for a cherry on top. Critique what I've said, not some strawman dialogue.
- discombobulate 10y agoI get concerned when my interlocutor says something ridiculous (IMO!). I think it may be a pattern to get out of the debate; when things aren't going well. I'm genuinely interested in integrating ideas. It may get rough. But that's the war of ideas.