4 ms·

I am highly skeptical of research from an organization whos existence depends on the problem they are attempting to solve remaining in existence.

RomanPushkin 4y ago
Rude. I don't see any reason why such organization shouldn't exist. I see the different side though. There is a pretty big number of male-dominated industries. And I'm not surprised by the numbers the research found. My recent conversation with a friend from Google: - How many women are on your team? - Not too much - Oh, but what's the number? - Zero, there aren't any
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. If their funding depends on a problem existing though, I'm pretty confident that their research will always find that the problem exists and is of high importance. Not many charities are going to go, our research found this isn't really an issue, we're shutting down. Are there no women on his team because of sexism? or because far fewer women choose to graduate with a CS degree? You are assuming sexism when the answer could simply be a lack of qualified candidates. What if women simply don't like CS at the same rate as men? Only ~22% of CS graduates are women. Or is that sexist to acknowledge that those numbers may drive team makeup at software companies?
- mym1990 4y ago
  It isn't about the organization existing, but about the organization backing research that reinforces the organizations beliefs(which could totally be valid). It's like the sugar industry backing research that says sugar is good for you.
korroziya 4y ago
This.
attemptone 4y ago
For the same reason I dismiss any paper from a department that focuses on 'Unified field theory' Or Computer Scientist that do research. Those eggheads can't see the forest because of all the trees. 'Is iT cOMputaBLE?' sure, but if you don't start the computation and are just theorizing it will never be computable. 'QuaDratic TIMe ComPlexiTY oF TRansfomerS?' Just buy more RAM and CPUs. What's the problem?
positron6000 4y ago
this is every research organization and think tank in existence. we should also never trust oncologists, because oncologists only exist if cancer exists.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  A good reason to treat researchers with more scepticism. > we should also never trust oncologists, because oncologists only exist if cancer exists. Cancer objectively does exist and we will conclude this even if we ignore oncologists. If cancer were something extremely subjective, widely believed to not be a problem at all and the only people claiming it was a problem were oncologists - then maybe. But it's not the case.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >Cancer objectively does exist and we will conclude this even if we ignore oncologists. This isn't true. Can you see cancer? How exactly do you know someone (or yourself) has cancer? If we eliminate oncologists and other medical professionals who are able to identify and diagnose cancer, then cancer won't exist any more. People will simply die from unexplained illnesses.
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      Um yes, of course can you see cancer. Just search Google Images for tumour to see many disturbing images of cancers. This stuff was taught in high school when I was a kid, how can you not know this? Cancer is so obvious it was being diagnosed and then described by the ancient Egyptians. https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosis/history-of-cancer/what-is-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosi... > How exactly do you know someone (or yourself) has cancer? By using your eyes or fingers to detect lumps. > If we eliminate oncologists ... cancer won't exist any more. People will simply die from unexplained illnesses. This is absurdly, catastrophically wrong.
      - midoridensha 4y ago

RomanPushkin 4y ago

Rude. I don't see any reason why such organization shouldn't exist. I see the different side though. There is a pretty big number of male-dominated industries. And I'm not surprised by the numbers the research found. My recent conversation with a friend from Google: - How many women are on your team? - Not too much - Oh, but what's the number? - Zero, there aren't any

wonderwonder 4y ago
I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. If their funding depends on a problem existing though, I'm pretty confident that their research will always find that the problem exists and is of high importance. Not many charities are going to go, our research found this isn't really an issue, we're shutting down. Are there no women on his team because of sexism? or because far fewer women choose to graduate with a CS degree? You are assuming sexism when the answer could simply be a lack of qualified candidates. What if women simply don't like CS at the same rate as men? Only ~22% of CS graduates are women. Or is that sexist to acknowledge that those numbers may drive team makeup at software companies?
mym1990 4y ago
It isn't about the organization existing, but about the organization backing research that reinforces the organizations beliefs(which could totally be valid). It's like the sugar industry backing research that says sugar is good for you.

korroziya 4y ago

This.

attemptone 4y ago

For the same reason I dismiss any paper from a department that focuses on 'Unified field theory' Or Computer Scientist that do research. Those eggheads can't see the forest because of all the trees. 'Is iT cOMputaBLE?' sure, but if you don't start the computation and are just theorizing it will never be computable. 'QuaDratic TIMe ComPlexiTY oF TRansfomerS?' Just buy more RAM and CPUs. What's the problem?

positron6000 4y ago

this is every research organization and think tank in existence. we should also never trust oncologists, because oncologists only exist if cancer exists.

fidgewidge 4y ago
A good reason to treat researchers with more scepticism. > we should also never trust oncologists, because oncologists only exist if cancer exists. Cancer objectively does exist and we will conclude this even if we ignore oncologists. If cancer were something extremely subjective, widely believed to not be a problem at all and the only people claiming it was a problem were oncologists - then maybe. But it's not the case.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >Cancer objectively does exist and we will conclude this even if we ignore oncologists. This isn't true. Can you see cancer? How exactly do you know someone (or yourself) has cancer? If we eliminate oncologists and other medical professionals who are able to identify and diagnose cancer, then cancer won't exist any more. People will simply die from unexplained illnesses.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    Um yes, of course can you see cancer. Just search Google Images for tumour to see many disturbing images of cancers. This stuff was taught in high school when I was a kid, how can you not know this? Cancer is so obvious it was being diagnosed and then described by the ancient Egyptians. https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosis/history-of-cancer/what-is-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosi... > How exactly do you know someone (or yourself) has cancer? By using your eyes or fingers to detect lumps. > If we eliminate oncologists ... cancer won't exist any more. People will simply die from unexplained illnesses. This is absurdly, catastrophically wrong.
    - midoridensha 4y ago