Merged US conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since the '70s

[leftysergeant]

1. Summers offered a hypothesis. Some Anthropology or Psych professor threw a fit. She (and the faculty who followed her) presumed without evidence (against evidence, actually) that the population distribution of measures of nervous system function must be the same for women and men.

It is the question of actual intelligence, rather than the way it is measured that is in question. Summers is an ecconomist, not a psychologist, thus not as reigidly bound to reality as is a psychologist.

2. Why "alarmist" and "unscientific"? Have you read these? I have. They cite abundant evidence.

To some extent, I have to agree. "Snarky" works better for me.

Your usual style of interaction with those who do not share your views.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wait a minute. That turd is an ecconomist. What have his opinions to do with science?

I think what is problematic about the situation with Summers and the one with Francis Crick a couple years later was that there was such a strong knee-jerk reaction to what was said that the individuals involved lost their position. If "race realism" is a scientifically acceptable topic, people espousing those views should not be worried about their job security each time they espouse their views.

 

[uke2se]

1. Summers offered a hypothesis. Some Anthropology or Psych professor threw a fit. She (and the faculty who followed her) presumed without evidence (against evidence, actually) that the population distribution of measures of nervous system function must be the same for women and men.

From the narrative you have given, the only one presuming without evidence is Summers.

2. Why "alarmist" and "unscientific"? Have you read these? I have. They cite abundant evidence.

I'm not surprised you have read them. Please select any single topic they bring up, make a new thread and post the evidence. I'll be sure to pop by.

3. Your usual style of interaction with those who do not share your views.

My usual style is to call into question assertions made without evidence like yours, so that's pretty much right.