Sunday, August 13, 2017

Have the Democrats become the anti-science party?

Up until the past couple decades or so there was very little wiggle room between what biologists, neurologists, medical doctors, and sociologists had to say about the two sexes. The consensus was that there was pretty clear differences between the males and females, biologically, physically, psychologically, as well as socially.

Ironically, just as biology, neuroscience have discovered modern scientific methods to measure and study many of these differences, many sociologists are now arguing that there are no real differences between genders. These sociologists have determined that any perceived differences are better explained by societal traditions, and societal expectations.

Quite obviously these communities are no longer in sync.

Now given that these disciplines come from entirely different perspectives, it shouldn't necessarily come as a surprise that they may at times clash. As we look at this issue from a modern day political viewpoint, we are entering the perfect storm of scientific/social disagreement.

Biologists are discovering that our genetic makeup is not as random as once thought. They are now finding the existence that the existence of the duplicate X chromosome and the existence of the Y chromosome actually creates two different patterns of genes. Neuroscience is now able to study brain patterns, and are also finding that these brain patterns differ between males and females.

Meanwhile, sociologists are viewing the issue from the observational aspect of a changing society that is attempting to eliminate what they believe to be gender stereotypes (rather than real differences). In 2017, it's not only politically correct to argue that there is no differences between men and women, but it is currently being argued (by some) that we really do not even have two sexes, but rather a gender spectrum.  Quite obviously this is in line with the belief that in some cases biology actually gets the physical characteristics of a person "wrong" (aka - transgenderism).

With the recent Google Damore gender memo causing such a ruckus, we are now witnessing the two political ideologies drawing lines and taking sides. Conservatives seem to be falling in behind the biologists and neuroscientists, while your liberals are falling in behind the ideological sociologists. Given the fact that biology and neuroscience are what would be considered more traditional science, while sociology would be considered more observational and even somewhat philosophical... it may be fair to suggest that conservatives are now becoming the champions of hard science.

Meanwhile, by putting ideology and social desires ahead of the more traditional hard sciences... your liberals seem to be suddenly taking on the role of "science deniers".  This would suggest that its' only a matter of time before the concept of a "science denier" is no longer associated with the uneducated anti-intellectual concept of yesterday... but rather a "science denier" will be seen as the epitome of a forward thinking intellectual not afraid to crash through the barriers of outdated and rigid thinking.

You can count on it.


opie said...

WhaT A CROCK of opinion. Again, you did not follow the scientific method that you started this screed on. Oh well, when some real science is posted, I''ll be open to that research... But what I see here is the same game you played with me by trolling whole threads and declaring victory WP kicked your ass and this thread is your naive attempt of catching up. Sorry, you lost again......

wphamilton said...

Pretty clear differences - true to a certain extent.

Pretty clear differences leading to psychological adaptions, leading to less capable or less likely to be satisfied in tech jobs - these scientists don't make that claim. It's a huge leap on your part.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a couple of science deniers justifying their denial of science.

rrb said...

a huge leap, wp?

not when you have an ever growing part of the left insisting that gender is fluid and a social construct.

C.H. Truth said...

Rat - it would appear that WP simply refuses to acknowledge anything you present. It's the "head in the sand" argument.

WP starts off reacting to a paper, that came complete with charts, graphs, and references. The memo has specific references to scientific studies and peer reviewed published papers regarding the "exact" suggestions Damore is making (and WP is questioning). I myself provided links to the wikipage on the subjects that show dozens of studies and specific references to what Damore suggests...

and then WP demands that the entire paper is written without a "shred of scientific evidence" for any of it. He doesn't argue that the referenced studies are incorrect, wrong, not peer reviewed, or anything else. He simply demands over and over and over that they simply do not exist.

Then, after I present multiple quotes from multiple biologists, neuroscientists and behavior psychologists who stand by Damore's essay and agree that the science is correct... WP then demands that no scientists agrees with Damore, and that all science suggests the opposite.


So I have come to the conclusion that he cannot possibly actually believe his own nonsense... and is simply trolling to see how ridiculous his argument becomes before I stop responding.