-->
@zedvictor4
Ya, chil dude !
The overstated contributions of women and blacks in science.
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@FLRW
Ya, chil dude !
Is he too hot for you?
-->
@Shila
Am I too hot for you?
-->
@FLRW
Am I too hot for you?
You have a well developed ego for your age.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Nice to have another woman on board.
So let me give you something to think about.
In respect of material/universal evolution, how do you envisage the future role of organic intelligence?
That asked:
Every nation will have it's messy bits in someone's eyes.
And relative to scale, Planet Earth is either a tiny speck of cosmic dust or an inexhaustible ball of molten lava.
And I speculate that your origins are culturally different to mine.
And for sure, simulation theory has its pro's, so in that respect what I imagined has no guarantee of being a factual representation of reality.
-->
@Greyparrot
What you and others like you.
That's you then.
Yep, we're here for a universal nanosecond, genes and all. And then nothing.
And the Earth will be here for a universal minute or two and then be vaporised by it's lord and master.
To what extent Earth formed intelligence will pervade the universe is fascinating to think about, though it's cultural origins I'm guessing will be dominantly technological, rather than biological.
And shellfish sure were and still are amazing critters.
The temporary lives and deposition of shellfish, is in some ways similar to the temporary lives and deposition of organic data...Both familial, both genetic, both laying the foundations for the future of something.
Whether or not shellfish formed separatist cultural and religious societies is not possible to say.
Though Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews are just you and I in various disguises.
-->
@FLRW
Yep.
Testosterone overenthusiasm do ya think?
I've got a new friend, her name is Yachilveveyachali.
Though I still have feelings for Shila.
Not forgetting Mrs Zed of course.
And any other cutie that catches my eye.
Thought Yachi and Shila only metaphorically catch my eye.
It's their minds that enthral me.
Not 1 mention of Marie Curie. Nor any knowledge of how teams work to get things done in science while 1 name tends to take credit.
Brilliant nonsense. Useless thread. Achieved nothing good.
George Washington Carver (c. 1864[1] – January 5, 1943) was an American agricultural scientist and inventor who promoted alternative crops to cotton and methods to prevent soil depletion.[2] He was one of the most prominent black scientists of the early 20th century.
bUt PeAnUts
Haaaalp plssss https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Threads always stimulate good brain activity.
Though extracting wisdom from wit is not everyone's ball game.
Yep. Marie Curie sacrificed herself in the name of science, and hubby Pierre was run over by a horse and cart.
They both discovered that shit happens.
-->
@zedvictor4
Though Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews are just you and I in various disguises.
It’s not a disguise, it is a belief system they follow.
-->
@Shila
It's a belief system they follow.
Yep, folks made up stuff and did stuff, and therefore some folks still do stuff.
And all flesh is composed of the stuff of the universe, whether it be Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or Elephant.
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a belief system they follow.Yep, folks made up stuff and did stuff, and therefore some folks still do stuff.And all flesh is composed of the stuff of the universe, whether it be Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or Elephant.
The saying "that which is born of the flesh is flesh" is a statement found in John 3:6, and it emphasizes the natural, physical nature of human beings.
In this context, "flesh" refers to the human body and its inherent characteristics, including mortality, sinfulness, and a limited understanding of spiritual truths.
Essentially, it means that our natural birth gives us a physical, limited existence, and we are not born with spiritual awareness or a connection to God.
-->
@Shila
we are not born with spiritual awareness or a connection to God.
I have observed in a few young children [very few, but they exist] of 4-6 years of age who have a very high, and apparently innate sense of the divine. I figure they are very old [i.e., experienced and have been around a long time] souls. And I have observed adults, [many, unfortunately], who are petulant children of 8-10.
-->
@fauxlaw
we are not born with spiritual awareness or a connection to God.I have observed in a few young children [very few, but they exist] of 4-6 years of age who have a very high, and apparently innate sense of the divine. I figure they are very old [i.e., experienced and have been around a long time] souls. And I have observed adults, [many, unfortunately], who are petulant children of 8-10.
Try to move out of your confused neighbourhood into something more normal.
-->
@Shila
Try to move out of your confused neighbourhood
I have literally lived in 21 separate neighborhoods in five US states and in 30 different countries in N.America, Europe, and Asia. These are my findings in all of them, individually and combined. Where, exactly, would you suggest, is "normal?"
-->
@fauxlaw
Try to move out of your confused neighbourhoodI have literally lived in 21 separate neighborhoods in five US states and in 30 different countries in N.America, Europe, and Asia. These are my findings in all of them, individually and combined. Where, exactly, would you suggest, is "normal?"
Canada!!
-->
@Shila
My personal sojourns in N. America include Canada, specifically, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal. I observed what I've noted in all four.
-->
@fauxlaw
My personal sojourns in N. America include Canada, specifically, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal. I observed what I've noted in all four.
You had nothing bad to say about Canada…a common observation.
-->
@Shila
I repeat my #74 post:
I have observed in a few young children [very few, but they exist] of 4-6 years of age who have a very high, and apparently innate sense of the divine. I figure they are very old [i.e., experienced and have been around a long time] souls. And I have observed adults, [many, unfortunately], who are petulant children of 8-10.
Yes, in Canada, too, both examples, as I have everywhere else. Human nature does not have borders.
-->
@fauxlaw
I repeat my #74 post:I have observed in a few young children [very few, but they exist] of 4-6 years of age who have a very high, and apparently innate sense of the divine. I figure they are very old [i.e., experienced and have been around a long time] souls. And I have observed adults, [many, unfortunately], who are petulant children of 8-10.Yes, in Canada, too, both examples, as I have everywhere else. Human nature does not have borders.
You appear to look out for the same type of people when your travel.
-->
@Shila
No, there is an ideal type I have already identified and I do encounter, once in a while. It is the standard to which I aspire, and expect of others to do so, as well.
-->
@fauxlaw
No, there is an ideal type I have already identified and I do encounter, once in a while. It is the standard to which I aspire, and expect of others to do so, as well.
You must be alone in your aspiration.
-->
@Shila
Just wonder why you're bent on my paranoia? I'm a very happy guy, with many friends and a loving family. Not at all alone. Stick to your own paranoia, pls.
9 days later
A lot of things are conflated in this discussion... Multiple statements may be true at the same time, and stating them does not imply having any particular bias. It is likely true that there have been a lot of "minority scientists" whose contributions to science were overstated for political and social reasons - and it is also demonstrably true that there have been countless "minority scientists" of objectively high level. There are women in science who get gender-exclusive grants and conference invitations, giving them advantage compared to men - and many of them would have done nearly as well as they did even without these grants and invitations.
On the West currently there is clearly a massive effort to put as many "minority groups" into the university system and academia as possible, the result of which is noticeable drop in academic and scientific performance of the average student: whether someone likes it or not, looking for a kid that can succeed at Harvard in a ghetto of suburban Detroit is a fool's errand. I am strongly against that: I think that all individuals should be treated equally by default, and group identity should not be a serious factor in admissions, grant distributions, etc.
At the same time, some of the minority-related problems are quite real. Women are not discriminated in academic physics or mathematics nearly as much as many feminists claim they are - but some discrimination does take place and is visible. To pretend that this problem does not exist at all or has been fully solved is to play a silly political game. Furthermore, in many areas of the world the discrimination is much worse: you will find far fewer women in academia in Russia or Iran than you will in the US or the UK, and not because women in those countries are magically less interested in science. There is certainly a space for some discussion to be had, and even if you - as I do - advocate for equal treatment of everyone, talking about the problem does not hurt anyone.
I am quite disappointed by lack of nuance in modern mainstream discussions of this kind. It is always one extreme against the other. Either women in science are almost slaves, or they are treated 100% equal to men and any attempt to even mention the topic makes one a "woke leftist". The reality is almost always somewhere in the middle, and without a rational discussion it is impossible to determine where exactly.