4 ms·

More scientists have written in defense than opposition, and even the most hardened opposition concedes the validity of some of his sources.

craigsmansion 9y ago
> More scientists have written in defense than opposition Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different from men, which isn't contested in the slightest. What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion. You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then proclaim it must be valid because it has something to do with the initial claim. What happened here was: -Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women. or -Fact: all goats breathe -Observation: Plato breathes -Conclusion: Plato is a goat. I hope everyone recognises this fallacy. It's pointless to keep presenting evidence for the initial fact. What you need to do is introduce new facts that construct a solid argument that includes your observation and logically binds it into the conclusion. As the quora article points out, that's not what happened. On top of that (or underneath) there's also some political la-ti-da going on, which is fine for a memo, and if it had been restricted to that, I doubt it would have caused this much commotion. TL;DR (also, don't use that term in any sort of treatise that you want to sound scientific) if you want to use science to shield you from negative reactions to postulating an unpopular idea, make sure it's sound.
- zimablue 9y ago
  So you're saying that he stated some science, which you're not disputing, and then made an argument from those grounds that moved from science into politics, and you don't agree with the argument he made. That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from the science were "non=science" - well yeah, by definition.
  - craigsmansion 9y ago
    > then made an argument from those grounds Except that's exactly what he didn't make. It severely lacked implications that tied his facts and arguments to his conclusion(s). > you don't agree with the argument "Since in the original memo a conservative argued towards a conservative point of view, and you oppose that, you must be a non-conservative arguing towards a non-conservative point of view." That doesn't follow. > attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. New Earth creationism, anti-evolution, etc. Let's try and be realistic here. Interpreting conclusions of actual science to derive truths that were never implied by said conclusions to further base your own argument on is intellectually dishonest and not "pro-science".
    - nicolashahn 9y ago
      Your Plato metaphor is unfair, because we already know Plato is a man, not a goat, from fairly conclusive evidence before you present your statements. However, Damore has put forth that the current societally accepted reason for the skewed IT gender distribution (prejudice against women) has less than conclusive evidence backing it up. Your assertion of the memo's claim: -Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women. This is close to what I believe Damore was saying, only replace 'must be' with 'may in part be and we shouldn't rule out the possibility just because it's politically incorrect to discuss.' Here's what I claim the current politically correct claim is: -Fact: There have been cases of sexism found in IT. -Observation: IT as a whole is a sexist industry. -Conclusion: this gender difference in IT must be based primarily on this sexism. However, is this a foregone conclusion, given the current studies found on it? I know of several attempts which have been made but none are any more persuasive to me than Damore's theory, either being too small, flawed(often for the same reason Damore felt the need to write the memo and why he was fired), or just inconclusive. And it seems anecdotal evidence makes up a large part of our reason for believing it as a society. It's quite possible the truth lies in a mixture of both, in fact I'd say I'm almost certain of it. However, for some reason everyone is outraged at the suggestion that there might be a drop of truth behind what Damore was saying even though he wasn't claiming gender inferiority, merely preference. Additionally, I don't believe he was misusing the conclusions of the scientific studies he cited. The prime example is his claim of women being more 'neurotic,' and people immediately assume he's calling them inferior. Whereas there was no value judgment in the original scientific study (which was widely accepted prior to the memo) or his application of it and may very well indicate a preference not to work in IT.

craigsmansion 9y ago

> More scientists have written in defense than opposition Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different from men, which isn't contested in the slightest. What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion. You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then proclaim it must be valid because it has something to do with the initial claim. What happened here was: -Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women. or -Fact: all goats breathe -Observation: Plato breathes -Conclusion: Plato is a goat. I hope everyone recognises this fallacy. It's pointless to keep presenting evidence for the initial fact. What you need to do is introduce new facts that construct a solid argument that includes your observation and logically binds it into the conclusion. As the quora article points out, that's not what happened. On top of that (or underneath) there's also some political la-ti-da going on, which is fine for a memo, and if it had been restricted to that, I doubt it would have caused this much commotion. TL;DR (also, don't use that term in any sort of treatise that you want to sound scientific) if you want to use science to shield you from negative reactions to postulating an unpopular idea, make sure it's sound.

zimablue 9y ago
So you're saying that he stated some science, which you're not disputing, and then made an argument from those grounds that moved from science into politics, and you don't agree with the argument he made. That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from the science were "non=science" - well yeah, by definition.
- craigsmansion 9y ago
  > then made an argument from those grounds Except that's exactly what he didn't make. It severely lacked implications that tied his facts and arguments to his conclusion(s). > you don't agree with the argument "Since in the original memo a conservative argued towards a conservative point of view, and you oppose that, you must be a non-conservative arguing towards a non-conservative point of view." That doesn't follow. > attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science. New Earth creationism, anti-evolution, etc. Let's try and be realistic here. Interpreting conclusions of actual science to derive truths that were never implied by said conclusions to further base your own argument on is intellectually dishonest and not "pro-science".
  - nicolashahn 9y ago
    Your Plato metaphor is unfair, because we already know Plato is a man, not a goat, from fairly conclusive evidence before you present your statements. However, Damore has put forth that the current societally accepted reason for the skewed IT gender distribution (prejudice against women) has less than conclusive evidence backing it up. Your assertion of the memo's claim: -Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women. This is close to what I believe Damore was saying, only replace 'must be' with 'may in part be and we shouldn't rule out the possibility just because it's politically incorrect to discuss.' Here's what I claim the current politically correct claim is: -Fact: There have been cases of sexism found in IT. -Observation: IT as a whole is a sexist industry. -Conclusion: this gender difference in IT must be based primarily on this sexism. However, is this a foregone conclusion, given the current studies found on it? I know of several attempts which have been made but none are any more persuasive to me than Damore's theory, either being too small, flawed(often for the same reason Damore felt the need to write the memo and why he was fired), or just inconclusive. And it seems anecdotal evidence makes up a large part of our reason for believing it as a society. It's quite possible the truth lies in a mixture of both, in fact I'd say I'm almost certain of it. However, for some reason everyone is outraged at the suggestion that there might be a drop of truth behind what Damore was saying even though he wasn't claiming gender inferiority, merely preference. Additionally, I don't believe he was misusing the conclusions of the scientific studies he cited. The prime example is his claim of women being more 'neurotic,' and people immediately assume he's calling them inferior. Whereas there was no value judgment in the original scientific study (which was widely accepted prior to the memo) or his application of it and may very well indicate a preference not to work in IT.