24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 108:
Line 108: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
While I am not a politically correctness nut, I do believe everyone is equal, and I think the current sentence portrays most women as not being capable of furthering science. I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this matter instead of just changing the article without asking. --[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]
While I am not a politically correctness nut, I do believe everyone is equal, and I think the current sentence portrays most women as not being capable of furthering science. I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this matter instead of just changing the article without asking. --[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]
: I agree with your point and suggestion. Please go ahead and edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 13 July 2010 (EDT)
::On the other hand, don't go overboard and insinuate the idea that women have been contributing as much to science as men. Even if we'd like to start offering them [[equal opportunity]], the fact is that their contributions have been minuscule. The great exception is [[Madame Curie]], who justly gets a unit of radiation named after her (the [[curie]]), plus one radioactive element ([[curium]]).
::I don't see anything in that sentence or any other here, implying that women are less capable. The question is whether their significantly lower work output is due lack of opportunity (i.e., sex discrimination) or lack of motivation (wouldn't most women rather stay home and raise their kids?).
::It's difficult to discuss these matters, because the last time a prominent academic tried to do so, he was set up for a fall (see [[Lawrence Summers]]). If you want to help write honestly about women's influence on science, I'm happy to help. But please don't waste my time by trying to inject feminist propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:::[http://www.factmonster.com/spot/whmbios2.html These] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/women-in-science-pioneers-blaze-path-for-others-1924794.html links] may be of interest. The only one I had heard of, aside from Curie, was [[Rosalind Franklin]], who featured prominently in ''[[The Double Helix]]''. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:12, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
::I'm all in favor of finding out more about the obscure, the overlooked, and the downtrodden. For example, in classical music, if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music. And in literature, I finally discovered [[Jane Austen]] (women have made further inroads in fiction writing than in music, it seems).
::There's even a woman whose work is prominent in the [[global warming]] field. She's a Harvard astrophysicist. [http://www.uwo.ca/sci/publications/images/Baliunas.jpg]
::But it's '''because''' their contributions are so rare that one is interested; the last thing I'd want to do is pretend that their contributions have been commensurate. That would sweep under the rug any actual differences due to inclination or opportunity. Let's keep it real, baby. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:::<i>if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music.</i> As for the romantics, I'd recommend Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (Hensel), and Amy Beach. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:51, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
:::Hi team. It's true that women, for whatever reason, have historically made less contribution to physics than have men. Exactly how much less is difficult to pinpoint, as women were historically not allowed to present science except through men and so forth; I'm sure you're all familiar with this unfortunate bit of history. Anyways, if you're looking for prominent pre-feminism female scientists, check out Emily Noether, who is responsible for my favourite theorem in physics. Noether's theorem (as it is called) proves that all symmetries in physics have an associated conservation law. For example, time symmetry implies conservation of energy; in other words, the fact that a ball will fall exactly the same way whether dropped now or next Thursday implies that energy is conserved. I think this is a deep insight. Noether's theorem generalizes to quantum mechanics and has been a key tool in the advance of high energy theory. --[[User:JStone|JStone]] 12:19, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Well, how about this revision: "''Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''".
I think this portrays the increased influence women have had, without sounding all feminazish.--[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]
:Nice compromise. Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:03, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
==Article assumes huge bias that are irrelevant to content==
They state that "Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, believed in God" despite the fact that
:this has nothing to do with science as
::science is a process, not people
::Christianity is mundane enough to irrelevant regardless
It says "and many were creationists although the ideas of evolutionism or Darwinism were not yet popular", despite the fact that evolution wasn't formally theorized until the time they were popular.
I'd also like to point out, since Conservatives apparently love quotemining and playing the game of picking names:
'''DARWIN WAS A CHRISTIAN.'''.
There have been many statements that Science and Christianity don't need to be conflicting (and yet you're portraying Science as an atheistic canker). These statements have been made both by Churches and Scientific Institution.
Science isn't Atheistic- Scientists tend to be Atheistic (because for the purpose of science, which needs testable, disprovable, observable results, there is no God. That's faith, not science.)
Two consecutive sentences are completely flawed in any accuracy that is helpful to the reader. I think this article should be reevaluated.
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 21:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)