3 ms·

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, an

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

> 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.