no one is disputing that men and women have innate differences. even the biggest women's lib proponent on the supreme court, ruth bader ginsburg, admits in u.s. v. virginia that there are "inherent differences" between women and men. only a monkey or a person so far removed from reality would dispute that.
however, i stand by my earlier argument. summers suggested a relationship between "genetics" and "success in the academic workplace." he went from point A to point B without the expertise to back it up. if i said, "global warming might be exacerbated by reflection from asphalt," would you believe me? i hope not. i just made that up. of course, it could be true. who knows. but please don't call me a hero for saying it. summers is not a scientist; his statements show a distinct LACK of the scientific method and should be taken with a grain of salt. if someone with the right background and experience were to make the same hypothesis while showing some real hard numbers from prior studies, results that came about from REAL testing, experimentation in a controlled environment, not by some hack with ideas but no facts... then maybe i would listen. and then if he went on to do his own studies and made a breakthrough - yes, i could call that an "achievement."
as someone who has had legal as well as scientific training, to call summers a hero of academic freedom because he made a non-expert, off the cuff statement in a questionable venue is simply ludicrous. you picked the wrong guy to laud, fellas.
ha ha, summers ain't a stephen jay gould. :)
1 comment:
was someone saying otherwise?
Post a Comment