3 ms·

HOWEVER many if not most cultures supplement their diet with roots, tubers, grains and insects. most edible plants are not red most fruits and berries are no

HOWEVER many if not most cultures supplement their diet with roots, tubers, grains and insects. most edible plants are not red most fruits and berries are not red many poisonous things in nature are red many herbivorous animals are colorblind implying little advantage to strong color vision as far as eating plants go. all of which is to say: "It is also known that women can see more shades of red, probably in order to be able to more effectively gather edible berries." needs a hell of a lot of evidence to be more than mere speculation, because all of the non-speculation says absolutely nothing about the use of red-resolution. And as a side note the number of largely color blind apex predators implies that "When we lived in the wild discerning different shades of green would have been crucial." is unsupported as well.

philwelch 18y ago
See? Basing an argument on actual evidence proves your point better than basing your argument on some political agenda. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because many herbivores and apex predators are colorblind" is an actual argument. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists" is just a politically charged ad hominem. It'll get you brownie points in the Women's Studies department, but it's still a crap argument.
- Avshalom 18y ago
  Okay see I remember seeing the article that made the berry link. Like actual honest to god degree holding scientists (of some discipline) were willing to be quoted on that hypothesis. A hypothesis that I, completely out of my field, just poked a half a dozen major holes in. I didn't "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists," I said the berry explanation may have been made by misogynists. I suspect at the very least it was made by morons. But despite your seeming distaste for Women's Studies, academia has a well documented history of misogyny that needs to be remembered anytime an argument is made that is so close to "women are physically adapted to housework." Particularly when, like I said above, a lack of evidence for some claim is blatantly obvious.
  - philwelch 18y ago
    More generally, it can be said that academia has a well documented history of basing claims on some sort of social or political assumption or agenda. Increasingly, those have come to include liberal agendas like feminism and racial equality. The solution is not increased political consciousness (all that accomplishes is exchanging one political bias for another) but rather better application of the scientific principles we already have.

philwelch 18y ago

See? Basing an argument on actual evidence proves your point better than basing your argument on some political agenda. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because many herbivores and apex predators are colorblind" is an actual argument. "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists" is just a politically charged ad hominem. It'll get you brownie points in the Women's Studies department, but it's still a crap argument.

Avshalom 18y ago
Okay see I remember seeing the article that made the berry link. Like actual honest to god degree holding scientists (of some discipline) were willing to be quoted on that hypothesis. A hypothesis that I, completely out of my field, just poked a half a dozen major holes in. I didn't "It's unlikely that women have higher red-resolution because that claim is made by misogynists," I said the berry explanation may have been made by misogynists. I suspect at the very least it was made by morons. But despite your seeming distaste for Women's Studies, academia has a well documented history of misogyny that needs to be remembered anytime an argument is made that is so close to "women are physically adapted to housework." Particularly when, like I said above, a lack of evidence for some claim is blatantly obvious.
- philwelch 18y ago
  More generally, it can be said that academia has a well documented history of basing claims on some sort of social or political assumption or agenda. Increasingly, those have come to include liberal agendas like feminism and racial equality. The solution is not increased political consciousness (all that accomplishes is exchanging one political bias for another) but rather better application of the scientific principles we already have.