3 ms·

CERN is the last place for discussing these kind of social issues which are only going to cause furor. They should well and indeed be studied, but not there.

CERN is the last place for discussing these kind of social issues which are only going to cause furor. They should well and indeed be studied, but not there. Also, it's a really hard one. Biases abound.

candiodari 8y ago
> They should well and indeed be studied, but not there. Yes, let's discuss them in social sciences (which is presumably what you're advocating). Because then we guarantee * no use of actual facts or figures * idiots will be doing the discussing purely for virtue signaling (looking good, not for doing the right thing) * these people (social sciences) justify their own existence because of a problem ... wanna bet they'll find the problem is worse than we thought ? They are not neutral observers, nor are they even taught to be that (by contrast, CERN is filled with people that are trained to be neutral observers) What's worrying most is that society at large seems to have made the decision that looking good and pretending to be morally correct is far more important than actually achieving something ... The social sciences themselves are designed like that: they start from the goal to modify society to achieve theoretical aims ... Allow me to make some modest predictions: 1) they'll fail 2) they'll do a LOT of damage before they fail 3) they'll cheat, fraud, ... in the process to prove the problem they fix exists and gets worse all the time despite ever more draconian efforts to fix it You cannot - and should not - control society for ANY ideology. You'll end up pushing very anti-women ideologies or worse. * people are now taught to cheat for "good causes" are going to cheat for their own personal ends (much) more as well ? * people will simply lie about things like gender equality, as that's rewarded, so it won't even achieve what you want * people will use these policies to undermine the organizations implementing them (or do you think women scammers are worse than male scammers ? This will be abused) * we are actually going to judge projects ... like the large hadron collider ... based on how much they advance women in science ? If we rate stupidity from 0 to 10, this has got to be well on the way to 20. * and of course there's once again the dedicated victim class. Much too few male mathematicians, for instance, are we going to start sabotaging women mathematicians ? No, only one group gets punished. This is not at all going to lead to resentment ... * it is fundamentally unfair. And no, you cannot fix one kind of unfair with another. This make society more unfair, not less.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I share some of your cynicism, but let's have faith.
- gpm 8y ago
  I think you're interpreting that sentence too harshly. CERN has to concern itself with politics, it is a organization funded by them. Controversial discussion endangers that funding. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that this controversial discussion not on their topic of study go elsewhere. That doesn't mean to the faculty of woman and gender studies, or social sciences as a whole. I in particular am delighted that a physicist feels safe enough to discuss it even though I disagree with him. It just means that I'd rather this was broadcast as a paper, blogpost, non-CERN conference, etc.

candiodari 8y ago

> They should well and indeed be studied, but not there. Yes, let's discuss them in social sciences (which is presumably what you're advocating). Because then we guarantee * no use of actual facts or figures * idiots will be doing the discussing purely for virtue signaling (looking good, not for doing the right thing) * these people (social sciences) justify their own existence because of a problem ... wanna bet they'll find the problem is worse than we thought ? They are not neutral observers, nor are they even taught to be that (by contrast, CERN is filled with people that are trained to be neutral observers) What's worrying most is that society at large seems to have made the decision that looking good and pretending to be morally correct is far more important than actually achieving something ... The social sciences themselves are designed like that: they start from the goal to modify society to achieve theoretical aims ... Allow me to make some modest predictions: 1) they'll fail 2) they'll do a LOT of damage before they fail 3) they'll cheat, fraud, ... in the process to prove the problem they fix exists and gets worse all the time despite ever more draconian efforts to fix it You cannot - and should not - control society for ANY ideology. You'll end up pushing very anti-women ideologies or worse. * people are now taught to cheat for "good causes" are going to cheat for their own personal ends (much) more as well ? * people will simply lie about things like gender equality, as that's rewarded, so it won't even achieve what you want * people will use these policies to undermine the organizations implementing them (or do you think women scammers are worse than male scammers ? This will be abused) * we are actually going to judge projects ... like the large hadron collider ... based on how much they advance women in science ? If we rate stupidity from 0 to 10, this has got to be well on the way to 20. * and of course there's once again the dedicated victim class. Much too few male mathematicians, for instance, are we going to start sabotaging women mathematicians ? No, only one group gets punished. This is not at all going to lead to resentment ... * it is fundamentally unfair. And no, you cannot fix one kind of unfair with another. This make society more unfair, not less.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I share some of your cynicism, but let's have faith.
gpm 8y ago
I think you're interpreting that sentence too harshly. CERN has to concern itself with politics, it is a organization funded by them. Controversial discussion endangers that funding. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that this controversial discussion not on their topic of study go elsewhere. That doesn't mean to the faculty of woman and gender studies, or social sciences as a whole. I in particular am delighted that a physicist feels safe enough to discuss it even though I disagree with him. It just means that I'd rather this was broadcast as a paper, blogpost, non-CERN conference, etc.