0
58

[–] KentBrockman 0 points 58 points (+58|-0) ago 

To save you the trouble, here is the controversial text from their article.

TRIGGER WARNING: sexual harassment, bullying, graphic violence, threats of violence, and adult explosions

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/11/footnotes.jpg?width=960

Just kidding. As a scientist I'd say it's a tad unprofessional, but I've seen far worse (between male scientists). Rivalries like this happen all the time, and they often get personal.

As somebody once said, the worst moments in a woman's life are when she is treated like a man.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 36 points (+37|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
17

[–] Guy_Justsome 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

Exactly this.

When the offending publication was made aware of unprofessional language, they flat-out retracted, explained, and corrected it:

The authors apologize for the unprofessional wording of footnotes 8 and 9. These are being removed and we will post a revised version to astro-ph.

But their decorous fix isn't enough for the white knight Cultural Marxist Ethan Siegel, who critiques that dry professional retraction as "half-hearted" implying it inadequate.

The Semite wants to see punishment and suffering as he gets his slaves in line.

0
4

[–] Cooking_with_Alf 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Women naturally fall in line with strength, as strong men protect and provide for women. Feminism is a communist influenced agency. Communists, the wealthy that fund it, benefit by creating a strong state and binding the women to it. This means the state owns and controls the women, thus, controls the population. By making the men subservient to the women, the communists cannot be usurped. The men are thus weak slaves to the women, and the women slaves to the state. Divide and conquer.

1
0

[–] Bigz_Sarducci 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I would give the square root in Pi in up votes for your comment if I could.

5
-2

[–] HeavyBrain 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

It's about female superiority

If it was the feminists would kick all the whiny cunts asses to overcome their weakness and actually become supirior.

Its not about equality or superiority, fuck knows what the cunts want, maybe they just want to whine and get some attention.

The mistake, we are giving it to them.

0
5

[–] lettersofmarque 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'm no expert in the standards of academic research, but I thought scientists regularly called each other out by name. How else does one "peer review" alleged scientific findings? Is a counter-argument not supposed to not name the actual study being critiqued?

1
5

[–] djsumdog 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Not really, and not in the passive aggressive way done in the footnotes of this article. You can say things matter-of-fact-ly, clearing stating the points you disagree with in existing research without using the exclamation marks and using just the science. More of a "this is why this paper conflicts with existing research and this is why: x, y, z"

The author could have done a better/more professional job in writing this paper, but I also don't think he should be called out specifically for harassing a junior post-doc because she's a women. I doubt it has anything to do with that and more that he didn't think any of her stuff added up.

This article is a bit sensational and just tries to hit a woman angle on it.

0
0

[–] OneTrueCube 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Agreed. The abuse wasn't really directed at her personally, but her work. From an outsider's POV it seemed a bit petty and maybe a dick move.

0
0

[–] Gowdy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If you can't take the heat get back to the kitchen.

0
17

[–] worthlesshope 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Ugh it's a guy complaining on behalf of the woman. Even his picture looks like one of "those guys". http://www.visiontoledo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/g_cover10_15110438_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

Anyways science is messed up now since emotions are judging what science is considered valid or not. Instead of totally ignoring arguments it would be really good if someone can listen to both arguments and see if they can figure out the reality of it. I'm sure both of them have some truth to it.

Though to my knowledge science has been this way since forever where what gets deemed "correct" is based off of how likable you are as a character and not how correct you are as a scientist.

0
3

[–] Samchay6 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

(((Ethan Siegal)))

0
1

[–] MaunaLoona [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

He looks like he belongs in the Fallout 2 universe and should have a bone under his nose.

0
1

[–] speedisavirus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Eh, barely a byline since his thesis. All he does is blog and write shit scifi. He is exactly the type I would expect to behave this way.

0
1

[–] prairie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This reminds me of how people argue about politics and what "should" be. It seems the classic result of people feeling forced to accept a group view ("consensus"). As with the state, the solution seems to be to just do your own thing along with like-minded people, and if your work turns into something worthwhile, then it'll take root. The real bad guy is all the people who just go along with the mass view and defend it like a threatened animal.

0
12

[–] lettersofmarque 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

When you are selected to ride the first rocket to Mars you want the designer of that rocket to be the scientist receiving which review format:

      A) Ideas mercilessly reviewed in the most acrimonious way possible, but where no serious discrepancies have yet been found; or

      B) Received padded and polite peer review and given the benefit of the doubt on unproved calculations because of gender or ethnicity?

I personally want the person designing my ship to have had his or her ideas critiqued extensively, both professionally and "unprofessionally" (whatever that means), but whose ideas have yet withstood the rigors of the fiercest debate. If the aero-engineer got a pass on her math because of "woman", I'm not riding in anything she's building.

0
1

[–] bob3333 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sexist /s

0
11

[–] gazillions 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

"It's well beyond unprofessional; it's bullying, it's harassing, and it's just mean."

Meanies! There are meanies in science. Cut their balls off!

0
4

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Hey you misogynistic bullly, women can have balls too.

0
0

[–] tame 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Oof. That's a mental picture I didn't want.

0
3

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Of those three, it's only the latter. It is pretty mean - but not even remotely egregiously. There is, in fact, some doubt as to whether or not she fully understands the domain - 'cause those results don't make much sense and when others look at them (my domain is math) they are pretty much all, "WTF?"

It's harsh criticism and that's what happens when you push something - you'll even get it when you're right. I was called all sorts of things when I first proposed that Chaos Theory could apply to traffic modeling. Some of those things were from Dr. Lorenz. Yet, today, we pretty much all accept that traffic is a chaotic system and traffic modeling is premised on knowing the initial starting state to a high degree of accuracy.

So, you'll get shit - even if you're right.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If you're in to that kind of thing, just look up some of the exchanges between scientists that were a part of the Royal Society. E.g. Hobbes

0
6

[–] tanukihat 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Wow so disagreeing with someone personally is now an attackable offense.

Good to know, I can use this when people disagree with me.

0
5

[–] Gamio 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Submit the same paper to another peer group and use innitals instead of name, as in PhD Jane Doe becomes PhD J. Doe. Apply some science to this nonsense instead of bitching.

0
1

[–] Greenzero86 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sadly I think she'd rather bitch instead of applying science to her nonsense, which can be explained through the science of gender differences.

0
2

[–] MaunaLoona [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Of course, she'd rather play the victim on twitter instead of addressing the criticisms on their merits.

And look at the stuff she retweeted just in the past day:

[sees famous man trending] Ok who wants to play "Dead, Traitor, or Rapist?"

and

You wonder why women love Arya? It's because we all have a list of names.

0
4

[–] rwbj 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is quite silly. Scientists, particularly in the more concrete sciences, take their work and pursuit of truth very seriously. For instance most people are familiar with quotes like "God doesn't play dice with the universe." or "Spooky action at a distance." from Einstein. What most people don't know is the context. Those quotes were him snarkily attacking an idea he felt was foolish. "Spooky action at a distance" was not a description of anything, but a sarcastic mocking of what others were suggesting!

And it turns out it was one of the few things that science decided he was wrong on. Quantum mechanics features purely probabilistic scenarios as well as some still unexplained apparent information transfer at rates faster than the speed of light. Einstein believed in a purely deterministic universe where nothing -at all- could ever be perceived at traveling faster than the speed of light - and so he came down quite sardonically on these suggestions. It's infantilizing, and inconsistent, to imply somebody needs special protection because their views were mocked as being inconsistent with other data. People disagree - vehemently. It's part of life and especially a part of science. May the more well supported idea win.

0
2

[–] vonclausewitz 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You're right. "The Big Bang" is another example - a term coined specifically to ridicule another scientist's idea. The truth is, many scientists have egos that would make Trump blush. They're assholes to each other all the time. Steven J. Gould literally destroyed many people's careers who he felt were threats.

This is only ever a problem when a woman is the target.

Plus, if you reverse the genders in that forbes article - if it was a female scientist using the phrase, "claimed sample" about a male scientist, then the story would be about a no-nonsense, straight-talking, hard-nosed scientist who has such a laser like commitment to truth that she doesn't waste time thinking about your feelings. Furthermore, for a fucking white male to have complained about what she said - that would just be his insecurity over his loss of privilege because she is busting up his little men's club inside astronomy. Give this woman a Nobel!!

0
0

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Wait until they find out the real reason that we ended up using the example of Schrödinger's cat.

0
2

[–] cyks 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If one is dealing with galaxies so far away that simply detecting them is theoretical, one must have an expectation of light-heart critique. One is not curing cancer or performing brain surgery, one is making up ideas about a couple grains of light.

0
1

[–] MaunaLoona [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The jury is still out on whether Einstein was right in those two statements. If you look at the wave function of the universe as a whole it behaves deterministically -- there is no room for chance! It is only when we look at a subsystem in isolation, which then interacts with the rest of the universe (usually the observer), that probabilities enter into the picture. This is the measurement paradox that is yet to be resolved.

Similarly for "spooky action at a distance". The resolution to that apparent paradox is the Bell Inequality. The derivation of the Bell Equation assumes experimenters can freely choose what to measure -- it assumes free will! It's baffling how such a ridiculous assumption gets taken seriously in the scientific community. The result is a nonsensical view of locality where two particles can be separated by light years and still be considered "local". The way out of the EPR paradox is to do away with the unfounded assumption of counterfactual definiteness. With that assumption gone there is no "spooky action at a distance" as both the results of the measurements and the choice of what to measure is predetermined. Without CFD it makes no sense to ask what the result of a measurement would have been had the same measurement been done in a different way, at least in isolation, because the rest of the universe would have been different as well.

load more comments ▼ (25 remaining)