4 ms·

Disproving a scientific study with blog and newspaper links?.. Sorry, but you will have to do better than that.

wpietri 9y ago
I am not "disproving" the scientific study. One study isn't proof of anything; it's just one entry in decades of academic dialog. I am pointing people to more of that dialog. And no, I don't have to do better than that. It's not my job to argue some random anonymous dude into understanding sexism. The people who want to understand the topic will do the work of contextualizing that one study. Those who never really wanted to understand, like you and the anonymous dude who tried using that study as a trump card, will go on with your opinions no matter what anybody tells you.
- kirillkh 9y ago
  You, sir/madam, seem to enjoy making illogical claims. First you link worthless bragging in attempt to prove that a peer-reviewed scientific study is "deeply flawed". Now you proceed to claim that I "never really wanted to understand sexism" because I question these sources and that I "will go with my opinions no matter what". Ironically enough, based on the above evidence, the last statement likely applies to you.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Ok, Mr. Evidence. Prove me wrong. List the books on sexism that you've read, with brief summaries. Show me your college transcript with the courses you took. I'll add that I have evidence for my assumption that dudes are biased when evaluating material about sexism. Aside from my 20 years of experience talking with dudes in tech about tech's gender bias, there's also a study showing this effect: https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on... So let's see your data.
    - kirillkh 9y ago
      I don't need to be an expert on sexism to make judgments on it. This is one benefit we get from science: it allows one to make accurate judgments without becoming an expert. If one had to be an expert to make any judgment at all, one would never be able to leave their house. Of course, some disclaimers apply. Any conclusions you draw based on a study have to stay faithful to its constraints. And you have to keep in mind that some fields are more trustworthy than others. E.g., so-called 'social sciences' seem to be as much overrun by extreme-left fanatics as the 'progressive' mass media, which is evident in ignoring obvious control factors (e.g. taking into account marital status and number of children reverses results on sex bias [1]) and in publication bias [2]. Also, it's you who needs to prove something wrong, since it's you who doubts a scientific study. And please stop linking news articles, I'm no longer entertained to learn more ways in which the mass media spins the Damore story. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pnas.201418878.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pna... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831 http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...
      - urbanj 9y ago
        Ok, you can fuck off back to Reddit, you ignorant cunt.
      - wpietri 9y ago
        Ah, right. You are so brilliant that you don't need to study anything. You can just know that most of a field is bunk because you perceive the practitioners as "extreme-left fanatics". Fake science! You also get to ignore any article about scientific research (even if it is written by a scientist) because of those darned politically biased journalists. Fake news! You have constructed a nice, comfortable political bubble for yourself. One you're only willing to talk about under cover of anonymity. This could be because you are the true lone genius you see yourself as. Or it could be because you are picking and choosing anything that you find politically inconvenient. Perhaps, as a genius, you can guess which one I'm thinking here.
        9y ago

I am not "disproving" the scientific study. One study isn't proof of anything; it's just one entry in decades of academic dialog. I am pointing people to more of that dialog. And no, I don't have to do better than that. It's not my job to argue some random anonymous dude into understanding sexism. The people who want to understand the topic will do the work of contextualizing that one study. Those who never really wanted to understand, like you and the anonymous dude who tried using that study as a trump card, will go on with your opinions no matter what anybody tells you.

kirillkh 9y ago
You, sir/madam, seem to enjoy making illogical claims. First you link worthless bragging in attempt to prove that a peer-reviewed scientific study is "deeply flawed". Now you proceed to claim that I "never really wanted to understand sexism" because I question these sources and that I "will go with my opinions no matter what". Ironically enough, based on the above evidence, the last statement likely applies to you.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Ok, Mr. Evidence. Prove me wrong. List the books on sexism that you've read, with brief summaries. Show me your college transcript with the courses you took. I'll add that I have evidence for my assumption that dudes are biased when evaluating material about sexism. Aside from my 20 years of experience talking with dudes in tech about tech's gender bias, there's also a study showing this effect: https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on... So let's see your data.
  - kirillkh 9y ago
    I don't need to be an expert on sexism to make judgments on it. This is one benefit we get from science: it allows one to make accurate judgments without becoming an expert. If one had to be an expert to make any judgment at all, one would never be able to leave their house. Of course, some disclaimers apply. Any conclusions you draw based on a study have to stay faithful to its constraints. And you have to keep in mind that some fields are more trustworthy than others. E.g., so-called 'social sciences' seem to be as much overrun by extreme-left fanatics as the 'progressive' mass media, which is evident in ignoring obvious control factors (e.g. taking into account marital status and number of children reverses results on sex bias [1]) and in publication bias [2]. Also, it's you who needs to prove something wrong, since it's you who doubts a scientific study. And please stop linking news articles, I'm no longer entertained to learn more ways in which the mass media spins the Damore story. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pnas.201418878.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418903/pdf/pna... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831 http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/...
    - urbanj 9y ago
      Ok, you can fuck off back to Reddit, you ignorant cunt.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      Ah, right. You are so brilliant that you don't need to study anything. You can just know that most of a field is bunk because you perceive the practitioners as "extreme-left fanatics". Fake science! You also get to ignore any article about scientific research (even if it is written by a scientist) because of those darned politically biased journalists. Fake news! You have constructed a nice, comfortable political bubble for yourself. One you're only willing to talk about under cover of anonymity. This could be because you are the true lone genius you see yourself as. Or it could be because you are picking and choosing anything that you find politically inconvenient. Perhaps, as a genius, you can guess which one I'm thinking here.
      - 9y ago