14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: +
Talk:Majoring in Mathematics (view source)
Revision as of 22:35, February 27, 2012
, 22:35, February 27, 2012no edit summary
::::::::I don't know why anyone (i.e., liberals) would expect or pretend that God created men and women to have absolutely identical aptitudes in everything. Men and women are physically very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 27 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::I don't know why anyone (i.e., liberals) would expect or pretend that God created men and women to have absolutely identical aptitudes in everything. Men and women are physically very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:06, 27 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::, Mr. Schlafly, lets assume you represent the average conservative male. We know that conservatives are smarter than liberals. However, you assume that women are somehow poorer at math than a male of comparable upbringing, and conservative women usually listen to their fathers and other good, conservative influences. This subtle (or overt) bias leads to scores of smart, conservative women turning away from math in favor of biology and social science. This leads to the only potential female math major being liberal, who then reinforce this stereotype. Otherwise, if women were biologically incapable of doing math as well as men can, the percentage of female mathematics PHD holders would remain at a constant 0%, instead of gradually increasing as the years pass on.[[User:KenShomer|KenShomer]] 17:35, 27 February 2012 (EST)
:::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms.
:::::I think the problem is a lack of imprecision when using words like "same" or "equal". In mathematics such terms have very precisely defined meanings and so to say that all groups of order three are the same or are equal (or, equivalently, to say that "there is only one group of order 3") is not to say that all such groups are the same in all respects (obviously, this isn't true or they would all have the same name/description and we wouldn't even doubt there were more than one such group), but instead only says that all such groups behave similarly in all the ways that are (currently) important to mathematicians. When dealing with real world situations like mathematical aptitude and gender, it's much easier to speak imprecisely (either mistakenly or maliciously) and thus much more plausible that some suggested equivalences are the result of liberal bias and not some underlying similarities. I just don't see how that is possible, however, in the realm of mathematics, at least with respect to homomorphisms.