4 ms·

>I would think many men would have had the same problem But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on averag

>I would think many men would have had the same problem But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed. Why is HN getting infested with "muh feelings"? I don't know why people get so offended by basic facts.

24gttghh 8y ago
The previous poster said "women", not "women on average".
- newswriter99 8y ago
  Touche. But let's be honest here, it's an implied average. Blame English, or comprehension skills. He also did not say "literally all women" but I don't see anyone here making the case for that either.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    I took their language to be implying a weakness in women that I did not think was warranted (emphasis, mine) >WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. > Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. > By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots. The final quote seeming to imply the mechanical feedback from the controls of more modern aircraft were lessened to accommodate female pilots, instead of more likely making it easier for all pilots to operate the aircraft.
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      > imply I thought I stated it quite plainly, not by implication. It's what I was told by the engineers that worked on it. There was also some concern that by lessening the feel forces, men would then be likely to overcontrol the aircraft, but this concern didn't pan out.
mcguire 8y ago
"Women don't have the lower body strength to do it." "The average woman is physically weaker than the average man." Excellent motte and bailey (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey).
- manfredo 8y ago
  I don't see how this is a Motte and Bailey. The first quote is just a more specific statement than the latter. They both say the same thing: that the average woman's physical capacity is not as much as the average man.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    The original statement was, "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." This is a very strong statement, clearly too strong to be supported. (I mean, the article. And all the aircraft delivered from factories by female pilots. And those Soviet combat pilots. (But everyone knows Soviet women were big and beefy, right? Right?)) The second statement, on the other hand, "But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed," is much easier to support (in fact, I'll accept it as true). It also looks like it offers support for the original position. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It serves only to divert the argument from an unsupportable position to a supportable one. That is why it is a logical fallacy.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you're injecting. Consider this: "Dogs have four legs." Would you correct people and point out that there are amputee dogs with fewer than for legs? Most wouldn't, because referring to a group without a qualifier is understood to refer to the majority or state that something is the norm, not that it applies to literally every single item in that group.

24gttghh 8y ago

The previous poster said "women", not "women on average".

newswriter99 8y ago
Touche. But let's be honest here, it's an implied average. Blame English, or comprehension skills. He also did not say "literally all women" but I don't see anyone here making the case for that either.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  I took their language to be implying a weakness in women that I did not think was warranted (emphasis, mine) >WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. > Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. > By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots. The final quote seeming to imply the mechanical feedback from the controls of more modern aircraft were lessened to accommodate female pilots, instead of more likely making it easier for all pilots to operate the aircraft.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    > imply I thought I stated it quite plainly, not by implication. It's what I was told by the engineers that worked on it. There was also some concern that by lessening the feel forces, men would then be likely to overcontrol the aircraft, but this concern didn't pan out.

mcguire 8y ago

"Women don't have the lower body strength to do it." "The average woman is physically weaker than the average man." Excellent motte and bailey (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey).

manfredo 8y ago
I don't see how this is a Motte and Bailey. The first quote is just a more specific statement than the latter. They both say the same thing: that the average woman's physical capacity is not as much as the average man.
- mcguire 8y ago
  The original statement was, "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." This is a very strong statement, clearly too strong to be supported. (I mean, the article. And all the aircraft delivered from factories by female pilots. And those Soviet combat pilots. (But everyone knows Soviet women were big and beefy, right? Right?)) The second statement, on the other hand, "But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed," is much easier to support (in fact, I'll accept it as true). It also looks like it offers support for the original position. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It serves only to divert the argument from an unsupportable position to a supportable one. That is why it is a logical fallacy.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you're injecting. Consider this: "Dogs have four legs." Would you correct people and point out that there are amputee dogs with fewer than for legs? Most wouldn't, because referring to a group without a qualifier is understood to refer to the majority or state that something is the norm, not that it applies to literally every single item in that group.