6 ms·

Lol Firstly, the guy isn't qualified to make such a sweeping statement about the opposite sex. So before we even step into the problems with why it's a dumb id

Lol Firstly, the guy isn't qualified to make such a sweeping statement about the opposite sex. So before we even step into the problems with why it's a dumb idea to say such things, lets just make it clear that he's a physicist and not an anthropologist, biologist, or sociologist. We definitely care about his moral character, but it's also just flat out incredibly naive to discredit women in his field when they've been playing catch-up for years due to cultural boundaries in the sciences. Any scientist who steps out of their lane to attack another gender or race deserves every bit of what they get. It's cowardly to use your position as a scientist in a completely unrelated field to justify your hatred for some other group of humans. Moreover, the guys history is terrible. He's got a chip on his shoulder about women and unethically chose to use his platform as a CERN scientist to exercise his anger.

titanix2 8y ago
It is comments like yours that is currently fuelling the ‘diversity’ meme pushback. You are denying someone the right to express facts just because of its gender and divergent political opinion. The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. Your position is not only ridiculous virtue signaling but you are also creating a scary world where the messenger is more important than the message.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  First, the commenter you've replied to is not "denying someone the right to express facts"; they're responding to one person's opinion on the internet with their own opinion, just as you're doing. Second, if you think researchers in the "hard" sciences are qualified to make authoritative statements about things just because they grok statistics, you're either being willfully disningenuous or you fundamentally misunderstand the way domain knowledge and expertise work. Do you also suppose mathematicians can tell us about human psychology? I mean physics is just applied math, right?[1] Third, it's incredibly condescending to respond to someone's honest opinion by telling them it's "ridiculous virtue signaling." There's nothing else to really say here, it's a dismissive and unsubstantive way of criticizing someone else's point. Finally, your position is incoherent. You're talking about this person creating a "scary world" because they've expressed their opinion on the internet, but ironically you'd prefer they...didn't share their opinion? Do you suppose you're not also promoting a chilling effect here? _______________________ 1. https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  What specific facts did he express? He expressed many opinions but reading the article none of the controversy was about facts. He just claimed that his opinions about women being worse at physics research were facts and wrongly used the male variability hypothesis to try and justify that. Please don't fall for his claim that he was just presenting facts.
- tempay 8y ago
  > The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. As an experimental LHC physicist myself, his use of statistics is either naive (understandable, he’s a theorist) or negligent. He used his mathematical background to appear knowledgeable despite there being huge flaws in his “evidence”.
- OldFatCactus 8y ago
  Wow a free speech soapbox. Guy got what he deserved, nothing else to it. Pretty funny you think that a physicist is somehow more qualified to explain deeply entrenched socioeconomic, cultural, and biological issues by being better at statistics?? Your position is just naive, wake up to reality. There are consequences to unethical behavior in the science community. Trying to disguise his motivations behind some thin veneer of research while having a record of misogyny should be clear to any unbiased reader.
- mmmmpancakes 8y ago
  > express facts Lol what “facts” are you referring to?
- dukwon 8y ago
  > The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. I laughed at this for a solid minute. Statistics is something that theoretical particle physicists frequently and flagrantly ignore, to the point where experimentalists have to be super careful in how we present our results.
- rosser 8y ago
  Really? "It's comments like yours..." followed by "ridiculous virtue signaling." And he's the one "fueling" shit? When you throw accusations like that — demonstrably ignorant of what the term even means — you straight up forfeit any claim to being the aggrieved party. This kind of accusation of "virtue signaling" implies that the thing being done to "signal" some "virtue" is done purely to send that signal. That makes it a morally empty act, because its only motivation is to advertise one's moral stance (which stance, by implication, is not acted upon in any way but that advertising); you are clearly and specifically saying that the behavior is otherwise void — that its only value is the perception of having the "virtue" in question it's intended to engender. I'm sure that pattern of behavior exists, and might even be common. The readiness with which it's bandied about, however, is, in my nontrivial experience engaging online, more or less invariably intended to make the person holding the stance in question and their arguement appear weaker, by attributing to them a compromised motivation. It does not open discussion up; it shuts it down. I genuinely wonder if you happened to read the article shared here, yesterday, "Our Culture of Contempt", or the discussion that ensued, because this is as stark an example of "motive attribution asymmetry" as any I've encountered in recent memory on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19339240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19339240 > The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. This is laughably wrong, in so many ways. EDIT: Phrasing.
- dang 8y ago
  We've asked you before not to post flamebait to Hacker News. This is what we're trying to avoid here, and if you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you, so please stop. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Here are some other links that might help with that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
superkuh 8y ago
It's obvious you have chosen not to inform yourself about this particular situation before commenting. You didn't even read the BBC article which had a big bold, "The decision follows an investigation into comments, first reported by BBC News, made by Prof Strumia at a Cern workshop on gender equality." The trigger for all this was his presentation at a workshop dedicated to having CERN physicists making statements about gender. Weather you agree with the controversial statements by Alessandro Strumia or not is not relevant to the parent comment being wrong.
- OldFatCactus 8y ago
  yawn more redirection and shifting. He stepped out of his own area of expertise to push an agenda of misogyny. He acted unethically and must face the consequences that entails
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Being upset and wanting him punished is a fine and valid view. But maybe you should've actually known anything about the situation being discussed before saying patently false and irrelevant things (about this particular situation).
    - OldFatCactus 8y ago
      Only one us is clearly uninformed and out of their depth (hint:not me) have a good day buddy
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't post in the flamewar style here. Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, regardless of how informed someone else is.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    So saying that men are discriminated against is a misogynistic view?
moomin 8y ago
Well put. 100.
travisoneill1 8y ago
Would he be qualified to state that men and women are equally skilled at physics? Surely you would need the same credentials to determine that.
- OldFatCactus 8y ago
  No and he would still be just as dumb for using weak science and fake research to justify the position that he is unqualified to assert. But obviously there wouldn't be as big of a reaction from the scientific community because the assertion wouldn't have been tinged with vitriolic bigotry. Any other weak what-ifs you want to discuss?
  - dang 8y ago
    Would you please stop posting to Hacker News in the flamewar style, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are? You did it here too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348928. (Edit: and also here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348978. And here again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19349065. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19349065.) We ban accounts that keep doing this. It's what we're trying to prevent from destroying this place, and we need your help along with everyone else's. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - OldFatCactus 8y ago
      I'm sorry. Won't happen again
      - dang 8y ago
        Appreciated!

titanix2 8y ago

It is comments like yours that is currently fuelling the ‘diversity’ meme pushback. You are denying someone the right to express facts just because of its gender and divergent political opinion. The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. Your position is not only ridiculous virtue signaling but you are also creating a scary world where the messenger is more important than the message.

throwawaymath 8y ago
First, the commenter you've replied to is not "denying someone the right to express facts"; they're responding to one person's opinion on the internet with their own opinion, just as you're doing. Second, if you think researchers in the "hard" sciences are qualified to make authoritative statements about things just because they grok statistics, you're either being willfully disningenuous or you fundamentally misunderstand the way domain knowledge and expertise work. Do you also suppose mathematicians can tell us about human psychology? I mean physics is just applied math, right?[1] Third, it's incredibly condescending to respond to someone's honest opinion by telling them it's "ridiculous virtue signaling." There's nothing else to really say here, it's a dismissive and unsubstantive way of criticizing someone else's point. Finally, your position is incoherent. You're talking about this person creating a "scary world" because they've expressed their opinion on the internet, but ironically you'd prefer they...didn't share their opinion? Do you suppose you're not also promoting a chilling effect here? _______________________ 1. https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/
joshuamorton 8y ago
What specific facts did he express? He expressed many opinions but reading the article none of the controversy was about facts. He just claimed that his opinions about women being worse at physics research were facts and wrongly used the male variability hypothesis to try and justify that. Please don't fall for his claim that he was just presenting facts.
tempay 8y ago
> The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. As an experimental LHC physicist myself, his use of statistics is either naive (understandable, he’s a theorist) or negligent. He used his mathematical background to appear knowledgeable despite there being huge flaws in his “evidence”.
OldFatCactus 8y ago
Wow a free speech soapbox. Guy got what he deserved, nothing else to it. Pretty funny you think that a physicist is somehow more qualified to explain deeply entrenched socioeconomic, cultural, and biological issues by being better at statistics?? Your position is just naive, wake up to reality. There are consequences to unethical behavior in the science community. Trying to disguise his motivations behind some thin veneer of research while having a record of misogyny should be clear to any unbiased reader.
mmmmpancakes 8y ago
> express facts Lol what “facts” are you referring to?
dukwon 8y ago
> The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. I laughed at this for a solid minute. Statistics is something that theoretical particle physicists frequently and flagrantly ignore, to the point where experimentalists have to be super careful in how we present our results.
rosser 8y ago
Really? "It's comments like yours..." followed by "ridiculous virtue signaling." And he's the one "fueling" shit? When you throw accusations like that — demonstrably ignorant of what the term even means — you straight up forfeit any claim to being the aggrieved party. This kind of accusation of "virtue signaling" implies that the thing being done to "signal" some "virtue" is done purely to send that signal. That makes it a morally empty act, because its only motivation is to advertise one's moral stance (which stance, by implication, is not acted upon in any way but that advertising); you are clearly and specifically saying that the behavior is otherwise void — that its only value is the perception of having the "virtue" in question it's intended to engender. I'm sure that pattern of behavior exists, and might even be common. The readiness with which it's bandied about, however, is, in my nontrivial experience engaging online, more or less invariably intended to make the person holding the stance in question and their arguement appear weaker, by attributing to them a compromised motivation. It does not open discussion up; it shuts it down. I genuinely wonder if you happened to read the article shared here, yesterday, "Our Culture of Contempt", or the discussion that ensued, because this is as stark an example of "motive attribution asymmetry" as any I've encountered in recent memory on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19339240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19339240 > The guy is a physicist, he is way more qualified than any sociologist to deal with statistics. This is laughably wrong, in so many ways. EDIT: Phrasing.
dang 8y ago
We've asked you before not to post flamebait to Hacker News. This is what we're trying to avoid here, and if you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you, so please stop. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Here are some other links that might help with that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

superkuh 8y ago

It's obvious you have chosen not to inform yourself about this particular situation before commenting. You didn't even read the BBC article which had a big bold, "The decision follows an investigation into comments, first reported by BBC News, made by Prof Strumia at a Cern workshop on gender equality." The trigger for all this was his presentation at a workshop dedicated to having CERN physicists making statements about gender. Weather you agree with the controversial statements by Alessandro Strumia or not is not relevant to the parent comment being wrong.

OldFatCactus 8y ago
yawn more redirection and shifting. He stepped out of his own area of expertise to push an agenda of misogyny. He acted unethically and must face the consequences that entails
- superkuh 8y ago
  Being upset and wanting him punished is a fine and valid view. But maybe you should've actually known anything about the situation being discussed before saying patently false and irrelevant things (about this particular situation).
  - OldFatCactus 8y ago
    Only one us is clearly uninformed and out of their depth (hint:not me) have a good day buddy
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't post in the flamewar style here. Instead, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, regardless of how informed someone else is.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  So saying that men are discriminated against is a misogynistic view?

moomin 8y ago

Well put. 100.

travisoneill1 8y ago

Would he be qualified to state that men and women are equally skilled at physics? Surely you would need the same credentials to determine that.

OldFatCactus 8y ago
No and he would still be just as dumb for using weak science and fake research to justify the position that he is unqualified to assert. But obviously there wouldn't be as big of a reaction from the scientific community because the assertion wouldn't have been tinged with vitriolic bigotry. Any other weak what-ifs you want to discuss?
- dang 8y ago
  Would you please stop posting to Hacker News in the flamewar style, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are? You did it here too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348928. (Edit: and also here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348978. And here again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19349065. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19349065.) We ban accounts that keep doing this. It's what we're trying to prevent from destroying this place, and we need your help along with everyone else's. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - OldFatCactus 8y ago
    I'm sorry. Won't happen again
    - dang 8y ago
      Appreciated!