Top 5 Things Wrong With Science

[Perspicuo]

 

[ryan]

Isn't this a problem about how science is practiced and interpreted?

I was hoping to see something like the assumed induction principles and ontological assumptions that science has to make.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If both men and women show the same hiring bias then maybe it's not actually a gender bias in the first place.

 

[bigfield]

If both men and women show the same hiring bias then maybe it's not actually a gender bias in the first place.

Come back with an analysis of the research to back up your claim, and maybe it will worth the effort to consider that you could be right and the researchers wrong.

Right now, your speculation is just flat out denialism.

 

[Perspicuo]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

fivethirtyeight.com: Science Isn’t Broken
It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for.
by Christie Aschwanden

If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have taken a hit lately.

Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.

Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words, repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.”

Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of [...]

... but...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If both men and women show the same hiring bias then maybe it's not actually a gender bias in the first place.

Come back with an analysis of the research to back up your claim, and maybe it will worth the effort to consider that you could be right and the researchers wrong.

Right now, your speculation is just flat out denialism.

Either you accept that women discriminate against women or you consider the alternative that there's something else going on.

Why would women discriminate against women?

 

[bilby]

Come back with an analysis of the research to back up your claim, and maybe it will worth the effort to consider that you could be right and the researchers wrong.

Right now, your speculation is just flat out denialism.

Either you accept that women discriminate against women or you consider the alternative that there's something else going on.

Why would women discriminate against women?

Because it's the done thing.

People discriminate against their own group all the time. If the received wisdom is that girls can't do mathematics, then both boys and girls will likely pick boys for a mathletics team - regardless of the actual spread of mathematical ability.

Where self-discrimination is broad-based and personal, we call it 'Low self-esteem'; There is nothing about being a member of a group that stops people from discriminating unreasonably against that group.

I find it astonishing that this is new to you.

 

[Underseer]

Come back with an analysis of the research to back up your claim, and maybe it will worth the effort to consider that you could be right and the researchers wrong.

Right now, your speculation is just flat out denialism.

Either you accept that women discriminate against women or you consider the alternative that there's something else going on.

Why would women discriminate against women?

The same thing happens with African-Americans. It happens, because most racism at this point is of the subconscious variety, and some minority groups genuinely believe they are inferior, even if they don't admit that to themselves consciously. Just like you think certain minority groups are inferior even though you won't admit to that consciously.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Either you accept that women discriminate against women or you consider the alternative that there's something else going on.

Why would women discriminate against women?

Because it's the done thing.

People discriminate against their own group all the time. If the received wisdom is that girls can't do mathematics, then both boys and girls will likely pick boys for a mathletics team - regardless of the actual spread of mathematical ability.

Where self-discrimination is broad-based and personal, we call it 'Low self-esteem'; There is nothing about being a member of a group that stops people from discriminating unreasonably against that group.

I find it astonishing that this is new to you.

You're simply assuming it's discrimination at work. Does it not occur to you that there might be something to the notion that women are less likely to be interested in fields with less human contact?

 

[bilby]

Because it's the done thing.

People discriminate against their own group all the time. If the received wisdom is that girls can't do mathematics, then both boys and girls will likely pick boys for a mathletics team - regardless of the actual spread of mathematical ability.

Where self-discrimination is broad-based and personal, we call it 'Low self-esteem'; There is nothing about being a member of a group that stops people from discriminating unreasonably against that group.

I find it astonishing that this is new to you.

You're simply assuming it's discrimination at work. Does it not occur to you that there might be something to the notion that women are less likely to be interested in fields with less human contact?

It occurred to me, and I dismissed it as inconsistent with my personal observations.

That your assumptions differ from mine doesn't make your assumption more plausible than mine; you can dismiss my argument as founded on assumptions, but only at the cost of either dismissing your own argument on the same grounds; or of being openly hypocritical.

 

[barbos]

Another women&math debate? I love these

 

[bigfield]

You're simply assuming it's discrimination at work. Does it not occur to you that there might be something to the notion that women are less likely to be interested in fields with less human contact?

Sanford states that "...both sexes favour men two-to-one in situations like hiring."

That has nothing to do with women who are not interested in fields with less human contact.

It's just more desperate denialism on your part.

 

[barbos]

What if it is both? I mean it is discrimination but based on objective reality.

 

[OLDMAN]

These seem to be problems with society and not science or the way it is performed...but she is right about these problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're simply assuming it's discrimination at work. Does it not occur to you that there might be something to the notion that women are less likely to be interested in fields with less human contact?

It occurred to me, and I dismissed it as inconsistent with my personal observations.

That your assumptions differ from mine doesn't make your assumption more plausible than mine; you can dismiss my argument as founded on assumptions, but only at the cost of either dismissing your own argument on the same grounds; or of being openly hypocritical.

So you assume people will discriminate against their own group rather than consider there might possibly be some actual difference? Never mind the research that shows there *IS* a difference.

 

[bilby]

It occurred to me, and I dismissed it as inconsistent with my personal observations.

That your assumptions differ from mine doesn't make your assumption more plausible than mine; you can dismiss my argument as founded on assumptions, but only at the cost of either dismissing your own argument on the same grounds; or of being openly hypocritical.

So you assume people will discriminate against their own group rather than consider there might possibly be some actual difference? Never mind the research that shows there *IS* a difference.

So open hypocrisy it is then.

Human interaction is complex; there is no justification for your dismissal of own-group discrimination, and plenty of evidence that it occurs.

It is quite possible, and even likely, that multiple factors are in play in most real-world situations; your dismissal of the possibility of irrational discrimination by women against women is unjustified EVEN IF there is a small level of reasonable bias. Your refusal to consider that possibility is presumptuous, and your defence of that position by accusing me of making unwarranted assumptions displays a laughable and disappointing lack of self-criticism on your part. It is possible that both justified AND unjustified bias occurs, but if your dismissal of the possibility of unjustified prejudice is justified on the grounds you claim, then your argument can equally be dismissed on the exact same grounds.

Goose sauce is gander sauce.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. How about referring to that research a bit.

This article seems to be on point.

How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.long

In most situations, employers do not rely only on their priors. They benefit from some information about the candidates: objective measures of past performance, self-reports, or both. The additional advantage of the laboratory environment is that we can show that the provision of additional information interacts with this initial bias and affects the discrimination outcome. When objective information about past performance is available, it attenuates but does not eliminate the sex bias in hiring. Although the preexisting stereotype does not contaminate the information received (probably because the information is considered objective), it still affects the posterior distribution of expectations. Thus, even in the face of valuable new information, employers continue to rely at least in part on their biased priors.

The effect is very different when self-reported information becomes available. Men tend to be more self-promoting than women in these reports, but employers, particularly those demonstrating evidence of stronger implicit sex bias (higher IAT), do not fully appreciate the extent of this difference. Thus, the bias against women measured by the IAT seems to act in two ways: It penalizes women when an unfounded negative stereotype against them exists, and it does not penalize men when there is evidence (15, 16) that they over promote themselves.

Shouldn't this conversation be in social science?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK. How about referring to that research a bit.

This article seems to be on point.

How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.long

In most situations, employers do not rely only on their priors. They benefit from some information about the candidates: objective measures of past performance, self-reports, or both. The additional advantage of the laboratory environment is that we can show that the provision of additional information interacts with this initial bias and affects the discrimination outcome. When objective information about past performance is available, it attenuates but does not eliminate the sex bias in hiring. Although the preexisting stereotype does not contaminate the information received (probably because the information is considered objective), it still affects the posterior distribution of expectations. Thus, even in the face of valuable new information, employers continue to rely at least in part on their biased priors.

The effect is very different when self-reported information becomes available. Men tend to be more self-promoting than women in these reports, but employers, particularly those demonstrating evidence of stronger implicit sex bias (higher IAT), do not fully appreciate the extent of this difference. Thus, the bias against women measured by the IAT seems to act in two ways: It penalizes women when an unfounded negative stereotype against them exists, and it does not penalize men when there is evidence (15, 16) that they over promote themselves.

Shouldn't this conversation be in social science?

IAT = proving it's easier to learn something than to change existing learning.

 

[barbos]

We have already had this discussion about gazillion times with links to gazillion "studies"
Bias exists but it is based on prior experience.