4 ms·

It's her maternal instinct kicking in. I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become

by dgut 8y ago

It's her maternal instinct kicking in. I know some female scientists who wouldn't want to hear anything about attributing differences to IQ or genes and become very emotional if the topic is ever mentioned. "I don't want to think of my friends from X as N".

laughingman2 8y ago
I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same. This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.
- dgut 8y ago
  This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study. Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics? Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play. Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        Most people regard ethics as rooted in emotion; we don't want to live in a society in which harm is done to people, because that contradicts our emotions about what is just. As such, the statement that science shouldn't care about emotions seems to imply that science shouldn't care about ethics, either - and this is especially important for those who believe that ethics are statements of emotion rather than appeals to objective morality. I wasn't speaking of this case in particular, but of scientific ethics in general.

by dgut 8y ago

laughingman2 8y ago

I think by calling someone's error out as "maternal instinct" instead of arguing against it rationally, you have become the very caricature that makes their argument more valid.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Why not 'her social responsibility' kicking in? Because there it is, attributing 'weak' motivations to women, because of course women are all the same. This would be funny, a comment that exhibits precisely why the argument it 'refutes' is true. If it wasn't sexist and demeaning as well.

dgut 8y ago
This is not social responsibility. It's an emotional reaction to a scientific study. There is nothing irresponsible about the study. Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. And yes, neurotypical women are close to identical at the meta level I'm talking about. Same for men.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >Science doesn't have to care for the emotions of specific groups. Then we're doomed. What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics?
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > What's your opinion on the idea of scientific ethics? Neither harm to the subjects of the research nor the ones conducting it is occurring, so it's unclear how scientific ethics comes into play. Are you genuinely attempting to suggests that there some truths about the universe which are so inimical to the human spirit that we dare not reveal them? If so, the quote which springs immediately to mind is PKD's "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      Most people regard ethics as rooted in emotion; we don't want to live in a society in which harm is done to people, because that contradicts our emotions about what is just. As such, the statement that science shouldn't care about emotions seems to imply that science shouldn't care about ethics, either - and this is especially important for those who believe that ethics are statements of emotion rather than appeals to objective morality. I wasn't speaking of this case in particular, but of scientific ethics in general.