Has science become too politically correct?

[barbatus]

Often times when reading about newer studies I find myself thinking that the social sciences have crept their way into the hard sciences a little too deeply. A friend of mine is in Uni for Archaeology and Anthropology and she's being taught that race is a social construct, gender is a social construct and that the genetic differences between peoples are too small for there to be different classifications for people. Now, I realize that Anthro and such are based in the social sciences but I feel like when scientists conduct studies related to these kinds of topics they go in merely trying to prove that the only difference between people is class. All this Marxist thought that's infiltrated the sciences. What do you think?

[Linebacker]

Science is always sincere.On topic for the apricity,the fact that some discoveries and studies do not please some extremist racialist individuals does not mean they were falsely edited this way to be politically correct or jews did it.

[TLevin]

Yes, and for the reasons you mention. The vast amount of deceit and manipulation in the sciences makes it very hard to trust, too.

[TLevin]

Science is always sincere.On topic for the apricity,the fact that some discoveries and studies do not please some extremist racialist individuals does not mean they were falsely edited this way to be politically correct or jews did it.

A-level in stupidity and ignorance.

[barbatus]

Science is always sincere.On topic for the apricity,the fact that some discoveries and studies do not please some extremist racialist individuals does not mean they were falsely edited this way to be politically correct or jews did it.

It's the terminology and everything they use too though. It's all the same shit you'd hear on Tumblr. I think special interest groups have too much financial interests in this sort of thing nowadays.

[safinator]

Just look at what outrage Satoshi Kanazawa and Thilo Sarazzin got in the last years to know that the answer is a blatant yes.

[King Claus]

Science is always sincere.On topic for the apricity,the fact that some discoveries and studies do not please some extremist racialist individuals does not mean they were falsely edited this way to be politically correct or jews did it.
try harder

[Linebacker]

A-level in stupidity and ignorance.

Deal with the facts the community gives you.I'd rather believe them than a fat middle aged man living in debt like Melonhead thinking he is going to revoke all their work.

When you study and get a couple degrees,awards and a status in the field of subject,then you have the right to question and make theories on it.If not,keep your mouth shut and don't object people higher than you.

[Unome]

Cultural Marxism ("everything is a social construct", nurture > nature) is fighting to have "Science" on its side, in order to justify its politickal aspirations.

It's a war over ideas and knowledge. For example, denying "Race", human differences, intelligence, etc. absolutely is anti-Science. Yet Marxists try to overturn it anyway.


People should admit that race/ethnic grouping is scientific, objective, universal, historical fact. It is not a social construct. Because genes are not a social construct.

People should learn the difference between genetics and social engineering (indoctrinating populations with outright lies and falsehood).

[Balmung]

Its not the actual science thats the problem. Its pretty clear cut. The issue is with journalist and authoritative figures who barely understand the data using it to push their pc idealogies. A lot of people even still don't fully comprehend the out of africa theory because journalist have twisted it into something its not. Should be against the law to post on data you can't understand.

[Sikeliot]

Yes. Science is meant to be objective, and if the facts are offensive or concerning, well that doesn't mean we should lie about them. I don't care if people are offended by the gender binary.. science supports two genders, male and female. It supports the notion that brain chemistry and body do not always match, but it doesn't support gender-non binary identities, sorry.

[barbatus]

Its not the actual science thats the problem. Its pretty clear cut. The issue is with journalist and authoritative figures who barely understand the data using it to push their pc idealogies. A lot of people even still don't fully comprehend the out of africa theory because journalist have twisted it into something its not. Should be against the law to post on data you can't understand.

This. The number of times I've heard someone day "we're all black" is enough to drive me mad. Out of Africa means we all originated in the continent of Africa, not that we were all sub-saharan Africans once and then changed our appearance because of the cold. Geography isn't race. Modern races obviously didn't exist yet at the time. It's like saying Neanderthals were white... they weren't even modern humans.

[Aldaris]

I do agree, accepting the existence of race indeed triggers some negative associations in certain people. Even though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging, that things like relatively great genetic distance between populations are real, the whole "racial issue" bears the numerous stigmas (supremacy theories, genocides, attempts to justify slavery, etc.) of the past. Thus, it is easier for some people to dismiss the idea of race as a whole, in order to stay far away from such associations in the eyes of "civilized and modern society". Plus, I can easily imagine the acknowledgement statements (without any suggestion of superiority/inferiority stuff) being twisted and used against those, who stated them.

[LightHouse89]

yes it has and my criminal justice classes are proof of it. they skip the anthro history of CJ......for example comparing primitive looking types of people who were more prone to crime were basically blacks...[which is very true].

[Aviator]

Science is always sincere.On topic for the apricity,the fact that some discoveries and studies do not please some extremist racialist individuals does not mean they were falsely edited this way to be politically correct or jews did it.

Whether or not these scientists are wrong or right on this specific topic, this is a hilariously clueless answer. Even you must know that Sven, you're just trying to troll.

[Linebacker]

Whether or not these scientists are wrong or right on this specific topic, this is a hilariously clueless answer. Even you must know that Sven, you're just trying to troll.

Yes I am trolling to cause butthurtness but that doesn't change the fact that my statement is correct.

The only people today that object the what the community says(anthro-wise) are armchair-anthropologist like Melonhead with supremacy agendas to push,who can't even figure out how to get sand out of their shorts let alone develop a legitimate and respectable theory on something.

[barbatus]

Yes I am trolling to cause butthurtness but that doesn't change the fact that my statement is correct.

The only people today that object the what the community says(anthro-wise) are armchair-anthropologist like Melonhead with supremacy agendas to push,who can't even figure out how to get sand out of their shorts let alone develop a legitimate and respectable theory on something.

Do you legitimately believe that race is a social construct? Because that's what "the community" is saying. Gender too, btw. In fact, pretty much everything that separates humans is a social construct except for class. So who is the ones pushing an agenda? :rolleyes:

[Aviator]

Yes I am trolling to cause butthurtness but that doesn't change the fact that my statement is correct.

The only people today that object the what the community says(anthro-wise) are armchair-anthropologist like Melonhead with supremacy agendas to push,who can't even figure out how to get sand out of their shorts let alone develop a legitimate and respectable theory on something.

That's also not true. Right now, scientists can lose their entire careers if they don't alter their facts correctly. Science is always sincere, sure, but scientists aren't.

[Linebacker]

Do you legitimately believe that race is a social construct? Because that's what "the community" is saying. Gender too, btw. In fact, pretty much everything that separates humans is a social construct except for class. So who is the ones pushing an agenda? :rolleyes:

I don't really care about social construct theories.Thats Jim Crow's department.Direct questions about social constructs toward him.

I don't need to push my agenda,it is already at the top and its not coming down any time soon.People that push their agendas are the ones who's agendas are not relevant and sitting below.

[Aviator]

I don't need to push my agenda,it is already at the top and its not coming down any time soon.People that push their agendas are the ones who's agendas are not relevant and sitting below.

In that case, I think congratulations are in order. You're driving thousands of years of history and achievements straight off a cliff that cannont be re-climbed.

Well done!!

[TheForeigner]

Often times when reading about newer studies I find myself thinking that the social sciences have crept their way into the hard sciences a little too deeply. A friend of mine is in Uni for Archaeology and Anthropology and she's being taught that race is a social construct, gender is a social construct and that the genetic differences between peoples are too small for there to be different classifications for people. Now, I realize that Anthro and such are based in the social sciences but I feel like when scientists conduct studies related to these kinds of topics they go in merely trying to prove that the only difference between people is class. All this Marxist thought that's infiltrated the sciences. What do you think?

Anthropology that ignores the existences of races and even genders is no anthropology and no science. And obviously it's class that is both a social construct and a social reality.

[Unome]

It's the exact opposite of anthoprology; it's anti-anthropology.

[Jackson]

Often times when reading about newer studies I find myself thinking that the social sciences have crept their way into the hard sciences a little too deeply. A friend of mine is in Uni for Archaeology and Anthropology and she's being taught that race is a social construct, gender is a social construct and that the genetic differences between peoples are too small for there to be different classifications for people. Now, I realize that Anthro and such are based in the social sciences but I feel like when scientists conduct studies related to these kinds of topics they go in merely trying to prove that the only difference between people is class. All this Marxist thought that's infiltrated the sciences. What do you think?

I agree. Basically the relentless onslaught of the hard sciences is chewing away at the social science's political consensus as it becomes increasingly clear that people are different not only due to environment but also a great deal to inherent factors out of their control, which has important implications for how people are treated. Basically science doesn't agree with the political ideology, so friction abounds.

What is odd though is that you would have thought people that bang on about diversity so much would be appreciative of some more fundamental diversity in the human condition.

I imagine that the current ideology will have to adapt to accommodate, as it cannot remain as it is unless they want to be seen to be dogmatic rather than progressive, but the ideology is too valuable to be cast aside. I imagine we will end up with some sort of awkward medium.

[Jackson]

That's also not true. Right now, scientists can lose their entire careers if they don't alter their facts correctly. Science is always sincere, sure, but scientists aren't.

Indeed, they all rely on each other to keep themselves going, so they have to buck to the trend or they'll struggle to make a living. So i guess most of these things are more to do with ideologies held by a few that have got out of hand due to academic back-patting and people looking out for themselves. It's understandable but unfortunate.

[Jackson]

I'd make 'A Troublesome Inheritance' and 'The Nurture Assumption' standard reading (even if only to present the other side of an argument) for many social sciences. Although probably would be best to only use the first one as introductory, it's good but a very general overview. They deal with race and gender and environment and genes in a very mainstream manner - ie the most politically correct person could probably read either and not have their precious sensitivities offended.

[Unome]

Politicians are compelled to unite people under one label 'Humanity' so as to enslave the masses under that same presumption.

IOW 'Humanity' makes it easy for people to be & remain slaves to the politickal elite. Divide and conquer actually is a military maxim, not a politickal rule.

Politicians and PC ideas favor the idea that everybody is or ought to be the same. Also it is "Utopianism", the idea that the world would be perfect, or have no competition, if everybody were the same…


But these are simple lies and childish fantasies. Reality repeats and teaches truth to each new generation. Competition exists, males compete over sexual access to females, the result of competition is inequality (winners & losers), losers are bred out of the gene-pool, genetics (aka. Science) proves that genes only trend toward "Winning", never losing. To merely reproduce, is at least a win on the smallest scale, no matter how low quality the offspring produced.

Life is a gamble in terms of what a baby inherits from mother and father. A single person cannot escape genes, at least, not in one lifetime. There is only so much a single person can change about his/her own body.

Therefore science trumps politickal correctness; genes trump fantastical ideas ("everything is a social construct", "people can change", etc.).

[Linebacker]

In that case, I think congratulations are in order. You're driving thousands of years of history and achievements straight off a cliff that cannont be re-climbed.

Well done!!

Its not Me doing it.I`m just supporting and enforcing it getting done.

Strings are pulled by someone sitting far above.And believe it or not(Im sure you don't,but it doesn't matter anyway),it is for the greater good of mankind.

[TLevin]

Deal with the facts the community gives you.I'd rather believe them than a fat middle aged man living in debt like Melonhead thinking he is going to revoke all their work.

When you study and get a couple degrees,awards and a status in the field of subject,then you have the right to question and make theories on it.If not,keep your mouth shut and don't object people higher than you.

This rhetoric is as empty as the head on your shoulders. I am not even trying to convince you here, you are simply too stupid, but I know much more than you do on the condition science and academia is in at the present moment; it is awful.

[Leto]

I think it has. Liberalism dispatches anything opposing it. Science has always been instrumentalized and manipulated by the powers that be. The whole equality thing is a joke, since people are not equal in their abilities. It's not necessarily about blacks and whites, race is indeed a bit vague concept inforced by society (though I don't say it literally doesn't exist). But the thing is that one population can be less intelligent on average than another, just like we see it on an individual level. Some people create, say, spaceships, while others are street cleaners. And there's nothing wrong about it. It doesn't mean a street cleaner is less human than an engineer. They are simply in two different niches of society.

[dude]

I think it has. Liberalism dispatches anything opposing it. Science has always been instrumentalized and manipulated by the powers that be. The whole equality thing is a joke, since people are not equal in their abilities. It's not necessarily about blacks and whites, race is indeed a bit vague concept inforced by society (though I don't say it literally doesn't exist). But the thing is that one population can be less intelligent on average than another, just like we see it on an individual level. Some people create, say, spaceships, while others are street cleaners. And there's nothing wrong about it. It doesn't mean a street cleaner is less human than an engineer. They are simply in two different niches of society.
I'm so bummed now. I thought the Engineer race was superior. :cry2
:lol00002:

[Linebacker]

This rhetoric is as empty as the head on your shoulders. I am not even trying to convince you here, you are simply too stupid, but I know much more than you do on the condition science and academia is in at the present moment; it is awful.

No you're actually trying to convince yourself Im wrong while I know deep down inside you know Im right.

You just don't want to face truth because truth in this case does not favor you.Thats where the saying "Truth hurts" comes form.If any of your views are right they would not be condemned by the whole world.

[Leto]

I'm so bummed now. I thought the Engineer race was superior. :cry2
:lol00002:
Well, they are superior in engineering, but ont in streetcleaning.;)

[noricum]

As Valhallan pointed out correctly, much harm is done by the media presenting good science in a wrong, utterly pc light. Then again many of todays professors and academics are the brainchildren of the 68 generations and that reflects in their understanding, interpretation and teaching. But this was basically always the case as academics and scientists are humans too, they are infuenced by zeitgeisty influence and always were. Even more so because they are smart and well educated people, real morons are even to stupid to be pc- or whatever the current zeitgeist might tell us. Yet behind the lights of media still a lot of good science is being made.

[Oneeye]

Its not Me doing it.I`m just supporting and enforcing it getting done.

Strings are pulled by someone sitting far above.And believe it or not(Im sure you don't,but it doesn't matter anyway),it is for the greater good of mankind.

You're coming across as a tool ATM...

[igo112]

...

[TLevin]

No you're actually trying to convince yourself Im wrong while I know deep down inside you know Im right.

You just don't want to face truth because truth in this case does not favor you.Thats where the saying "Truth hurts" comes form.

Again, empty rhetoric. It might work against your fellow gorillas, but it won't work on someone who isn't a complete and utter dolt.


If any of your views are right they would not be condemned by the whole world.

Condemned by the whole world, you say? At best there are some five per cent of the world's population has the tiniest shred of knowledge of my views. And what your little monkey brain does not understand is that popular vote truth makes not.

[alpha]

Not at all. Sounds like bullshit.

[Aviator]

You're coming across as a tool ATM...

He just desperately wants to fit in with the status quo.

[Linebacker]

Again, empty rhetoric. It might work against your fellow gorillas, but it won't work on someone who isn't a complete and utter dolt.
Condemned by the whole world, you say? At best there are some five per cent of the world's population has the tiniest shred of knowledge of my views. And what your little monkey brain does not understand is that popular vote truth makes not.

Keep calling Me and idiot yet you're the one here attacking the respected scientific community's work,people who have cloud higher status than you and have done more in a day than you in your entire life.

I understand it must be hard to feel so outside because your kind is no longer relevant in the 21st century and you're getting buried but don't project it on Me.

Good thing you're actually talking to Me and not to some people on the street,because they would probably get a heart attack form laughing.Im a little more tempered towards such clown types because I've dealt with a lot and Im kind of used to the comedy.

[Jackson]

The respected scientific community has also done work that you are attacking...

[Ultra]

Keep calling Me and idiot yet you're the one here attacking the respected scientific community's work,people who have cloud higher status than you and have done more in a day than you in your entire life.

I understand it must be hard to feel so outside because your kind is no longer relevant in the 21st century and you're getting buried but don't project it on Me.

Good thing you're actually talking to Me and not to some people on the street,because they would probably get a heart attack form laughing.Im a little more tempered towards such clown types because I've dealt with a lot and Im kind of used to the comedy.
Hahaha, that's quite the gold coming from you; because you're one of the biggest clowns here on this site. :laugh: :thumb001:

[Black Wolf]

Often times when reading about newer studies I find myself thinking that the social sciences have crept their way into the hard sciences a little too deeply. A friend of mine is in Uni for Archaeology and Anthropology and she's being taught that race is a social construct, gender is a social construct and that the genetic differences between peoples are too small for there to be different classifications for people. Now, I realize that Anthro and such are based in the social sciences but I feel like when scientists conduct studies related to these kinds of topics they go in merely trying to prove that the only difference between people is class. All this Marxist thought that's infiltrated the sciences. What do you think?

The thing is that all of us humans today have inherited the majority of our genes from a small ancestral group that probably lived in Africa a very long time ago but over time as people migrated around the globe mutations cropped up and that is why differences have occurred. Basically we are all pretty similar overall yet not quite the same if that makes sense.

[altin]

Often times when reading about newer studies I find myself thinking that the social sciences have crept their way into the hard sciences a little too deeply. A friend of mine is in Uni for Archaeology and Anthropology and she's being taught that race is a social construct, gender is a social construct and that the genetic differences between peoples are too small for there to be different classifications for people. Now, I realize that Anthro and such are based in the social sciences but I feel like when scientists conduct studies related to these kinds of topics they go in merely trying to prove that the only difference between people is class. All this Marxist thought that's infiltrated the sciences. What do you think?

I thanked your post, but I don't know what exactly has said Marx about this? I haven't read him, only the following quotes from people's signatures:

"When you can cut the people off from their history then they can easily be persuaded."

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower"

...and I like him so far.

[Grenzland]

Science is always sincere.On topic for the apricity,the fact that some discoveries and studies do not please some extremist racialist individuals does not mean they were falsely edited this way to be politically correct or jews did it.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?145931-Is-the-square-jaw-a-turnoff

:rolleyes:

Edit:

Haha Sven, you are the best! :lol:

All your accusations are exactly what you did in the thread I posted... :D

[Fortis in Arduis]

Just look at what outrage Satoshi Kanazawa and Thilo Sarazzin got in the last years to know that the answer is a blatant yes.

Not to mention Dr James Watson:


One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

The tyranny of Political Correctnesss / partinost demands that we discard the hard-won freedoms of the Enlightenment, but truth will always win, and the smirking liars have had their day already.

Melonhead is dead. No need to mention.

[Unome]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Cornel_West_affair


Differences between the sexes[edit]
See also: Women in science
In January 2005, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers sparked controversy with his discussion of why women may have been underrepresented "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions".

Summers had prefaced his talk, saying he was adopting an "entirely positive, rather than normative approach" and that his remarks were intended to be an "attempt at provocation."[29]

Summers then began by identifying three hypotheses for the higher proportion of men in high-end science and engineering positions:

The high-powered job hypothesis
Different availability of aptitude at the high end
Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search[29]
The second hypothesis, the generally greater variability among men (compared to women) in tests of cognitive abilities,[30][31][32] leading to proportionally more males than females at both the lower and upper tails of the test score distributions, caused the most controversy. In his discussion of this hypothesis, Summers said that "even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out [from the mean]".[29] Summers referenced research that implied differences between the standard deviations of males and females in the top 5% of twelfth graders under various tests. He then went on to argue that, if this research were to be accepted, then "whatever the set of attributes... that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley... are probably different in their standard deviations as well".[29]

Summers then concluded his discussion of the three hypotheses by saying:

So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them.[29]

Summers then went on to discuss approaches to remedying the shortage of women in high-end science and engineering positions.

This lunch-time talk drew accusations of sexism and careless scholarship, and an intense negative response followed, both nationally and at Harvard.[33] Summers apologized repeatedly.[34] Nevertheless, [B]the controversy is speculated to have contributed to his resigning his position as president of Harvard University the following year, as well as costing Summers the job of Treasury Secretary in Obama's administration.[35]

Summers's protégée Sheryl Sandberg, has defended him saying that "Larry has been a true advocate for women throughout his career" at the World Bank and Treasury. Sandberg described of the lunch talk "What few seem to note is that it is remarkable that he was giving the speech in the first place - that he cared enough about women's careers and their trajectory in the fields of math and science to proactively analyze the issues and talk about what was going wrong".[36]

Liberalism has become a very powerful ideology. Merely positing "Difference" of gender, or race, can get leading professionals, academics, professors, scientists, intellectuals, etc. fired and denounced from their jobs.

If you people think this is "not a big deal" then you haven't woken up to it yet. Science definitely is under attack from those who cannot accept the data and its conclusions.

[Oneeye]

Not to mention Dr James Watson:



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

The tyranny of Political Correctnesss / partinost demands that we discard the hard-won freedoms of the Enlightenment, but truth will always win, and the smirking liars have had their day already.

Melonhead is dead. No need to mention.

The kind of guy I'd like to have a few drinks with. XD

[ChocolateFace]

Everything has gotten too politically correct including science. Qualitative bullshit like Psychology and Sociology have always been laughed at in the eyes of real sciences, Homosexuality was once rightfully considered a mental disorder but was removed because feelings would be crushed and other stupid reasons. But now the natural sciences are becoming like these joke subjects.

[de Burgh II]

Science in their own right is simply objective, yet not definite in the sense that there will always be new discoveries to come about that will modify existent theories whilst observing natural phenomena. Yes, it true that nowadays everything can be skewed a certain way to fit a certain agenda to fit one's own society's creed to whatever it may pertain to which includes the sciences.