Posted on 10/16/2007 10:04:42 AM PDT by shrinkermd
As if losing the presidency of Harvard for hinting that there might be a biological explanation for the preponderance of men in academic science wasn't enough, Lawrence Summers now appears to be persona non grata elsewhere too.
A few weeks ago the University of California, Davis rescinded an invitation for him to speak. More than 150 faculty members signed a petition protesting his appearance, saying Mr. Summers "has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia."
Ms. Stanton and her allies want pariah status for anyone who dares to suggest a biological basis for difference. Yet the scientific literature on why men and women enter different fields is legitimate, robust, complex and fascinating.
Last week, the American Enterprise Institute brought together top researchers on sex differences, ranging from the strongly feminist Brandeis women's studies scholar Rosalind Barnett to AEI scholar and co-author of "The Bell Curve," Charles Murray. The discussions were heated, but civil. No one got mad, fled the room weeping, or nearly fainted.
Ms. Barnett opened by reminding the conference of the history of prejudice against women in the sciences. Though significant gains have been made, she pointed out that there are still "invisible walls" that hold women back. Another speaker, Richard Haier, professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine, acknowledged the long history of prejudice, then presented slides that must give pause to even the most fervent biology denier.
Using the latest and most advanced MRI brain imaging technology, he demonstrated that male and female brains have strikingly distinct architectures and process information differently. Mr. Haier reminded us that "there is so much we do not know and so much yet to discover about brain biology and sex differences, and perhaps even career choices."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
/ends moonbat rant, removes tinfoil hat
Those damn deniers just won’t go away.
Men and women are different? Who knew?
"I used to think it was society but no, no, no," she says, laughing. "You can put the same thing in front of both of (the twins) and they will do completely different things. He will see if he can break it, if he can throw it, and she is going to contemplate it, see how she can manipulate it."
Plus this will rile some FReepers up. She's an evilutionist.
Not a very good one though.
No such thing as a good evolutionist. They (many scientists not all) are proceeding from arguments and hypotheses based on BIASED assumptions. Ergo their results are tarnished from the get go.
I would hesitate a guess that you don’t even know what evolutionary biology is.
Why don’t you list the biased assumptions for the lurkers, assuming there are any.
They are the statements of faith they use to account for anything they can't prove.
you don’t even know what evolutionary biology is
Typical narrow minded remark
Quite the “scientific” approach to stopping any serious questioning of the status quo.
Still waiting for biased assumptions from the non-scientist.
The part of the story I love is that the women in the audience swooned when Summers talked about sex differences. Hilarious.
LOL! Way to point out the hypocrisy. People will say intelligence, violent behavior, and even morality are determined almost exclusively by our environment, but sexual orientation “must be” determined exclusively by our biology.
Better a “non scientist” than a scientific fascist.
Evolution is remarkably flexible in some respects - Darwin reasoned quite well (from evolutionary premises) to "prove" women must be inferior - today they argue fanatically that women are the "same" as men.
Evos are only “flexible” within the parameters of their twisted ideology. They confine themselves to “proving” the non existence of Divine intervention in matters of homo sapiens.
As such, they are superbly nonscientific.
You’re the one who jumped on me. Sounds like you’re the fascist. You have no facts so you attack with name calling.
The reason I know you have no familiarity with biology is because you’re not aware that evolution is based on simple observable evidence. It predates Darwin by at least 150 years.
If you knew anything about the topic you’d know that evolutionary biology is simply a descriptive theory. There are no great logical or intuitive leaps.
In fact, at one time it was called Natural Theology.
A little enlightenment would help you out. Making assumptions about things you have no knowledge of smacks of scientific illiteracy which leads to intellectual fascism..and your comments prove that easily.
In the meantime shove off.
Are these assumptions like biases?
Maybe you should come to my Christian Church and we can help you.
There’s no reason to fear creation, except for the violent 3rd world parts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.