Posted on 09/29/2016 9:55:18 PM PDT by aquila48
Women and minorities cannot understand logic or objective truths, says a graduate student in her dissertation, so science classes should stop using the scientific method.
College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertation by a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota.
Laura Parson, a student in the university’s education department, reviewed eight science class syllabi at a “Midwest public university” and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities:
"Initial exploration of the STEM syllabi in this study did not reveal overt references to gender, such as through the use of gendered pronouns. However, upon deeper review, language used in the syllabi reflects institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging, a view of teaching that promotes the idea of a passive student, and by promoting a chilly climate that marginalizes women."
Even though the course syllabi contained no “gendered assumptions” about students or other overtly discriminatory implications, Parson writes, they display prejudice against women and minorities because they refuse to entertain the possibility that “scientific knowledge is subjective.”
Women Are Too Stupid to Use Logic
Throughout her dissertation, Parson assumes and asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. “[N]otions of absolute truth and a single reality” are “masculine,” she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
No kidding
This woman is an idiot....and unscientific to boot. The fact that she can’t understand the scientific method does not translate to all women and minorities. Lirdy how stoooopid. I hope she failed her orals
This would be the unkindest cut of all if it ever happened: the end of objective scientific thinking and research. She’s actually a genius at undermining our culture and our intelligence.
Or as Alex Jones would say, “There’s a war on for your mind.”
My BS “Double E” degree’d sister (With honors from Michigan State) is living proof women can succeed in the Sciences. Granted, back when she was in school, she was a rarity; but only because women were not encouraged to go into those fields, not that they were incapable of mastering the course work. My BS and MS degree’d daughter, now in management, followed in my sister’s footsteps. Her daughter is a MS candidate at Wayne State in Detroit, hopefully headed for a Science PhD! My late mother, the first high school graduate of her generation, was the proponent of all this. Dad and I proudly supported them as did my grandfather.
What a racist sexist idiot
She is free to go to her own island somewhere and build a civilization on “subjective scientific truth”
When she starves to death because “ 2+2 = apple “ the rest of the world will laugh and move on.
First, was this blithering idiot awarded a PhD for this garbage?
Second, truth is certainly a subjective concept. See, truth is a philosophical concept. Truth is a moral construct relative to the philosopher. Truth has no place in STEM for that very reason.
The word this dunce needs to learn is one we typically learned in first grade ... Fact. STEM is grounded in fact, not truth. STEM has no moral relevance. Only facts are relative in STEM. Nothing about STEM is philosophical. One might use philosophy to devise a theory, but one must ultimately prove a theory using fact. Again, There is no truth in stem (it is also true that STEM is horrible as a philosophy ... It’d be akin to saying “My religion is English language” ... Overall, STEM defines and quantifies the universe and dictates the construction of tools we use to manipulate said universe)
If this moron is awarded a doctorate for this scribble that has ZERO basis in reality, that university should lose its accreditation. Moreover, it should be nuked from orbit just to make sure such a regressive intellect never spawns from that point of origin in the future.
Liberals make me ridiculously angry anymore. Theyre all concerned about microagressions ... They really need to start worrying about the macro aggression that’s heading their way. Frigging alt-reality slobs ...
Does she mean normal thinking?
I am a woman and an engineer. I am perfectly capable of using logic and understanding the concept of objectivity. In fact, I wish more people did. Laura Parson, on the other hand, is an idiot.
Oh, my, I sincerely hope her dissertation committee rejects this one, with prejudice. Anyone capable of this level of anti-thought is *not* PhD material in any subject.
So she reviewed 8 syllabi and found no hint of sexism in them. As a result, she had to invent sexism for them by claiming that women and minorities are too stupid to understand and think through problems requiring objective observation, experimentation, and analysis? And then she is able to conclude that science is sexist because it has no room for subjectivism. I wonder if this little pile of sand for brains is aware that an ideal of the scientific method is to set aside personal opinion, to remove oneself from the experimental process as much as possible? Is she completely blind to her own profound racism and sexism?
A perusal of 8 syllabi is woefully inadequate for PhD research. Furthermore, she displayed no critical thinking or analytic skills. If her university awards her the PhD on that weak basis, it should have its accreditation reviewed. The only silver lining here is that whatever subject she is pursuing for her PhD, it is not a marketable job skill.
Which is funny, because the highest degree awarded to the majority of research scientists is the PhD, or Doctorate of Philosophy.
I took a philosophy class once and hated it. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound? Oh my goodness, what an incredible level of arrogance must have existed in the person who came up with that gem! The physical processes of the universe really do not care if people even exist or not! Sheesh.
Regardless of my strong distaste for philosophy, I still like to put those letters, "Ph.D." after my name.
Hmmm. It will be a very interesting world when none of the doctors, engineers, physicists, etc. know nothing about science.
Hey, Zeus, we B in trouble now!
A lot of us love engines and horsepower and, you know, when you think about it, those really are, so far, the ULTIMATE engine.
Laura, stick to Home Ec, honey. You were made for it.
Come to think of it, my daughter’s Phd in Neuroscience from Tulane and Emory is an example of what a girl can do. And it didn’t cost me a dime. (Well I paid for the With Honors at UVA).
Math is hard!!
In the 1950’s, William Sargant wrote a great book on psychological warfare entitled “The Battle for the Mind” - Doubleday & Co. Inc., Garden City, NY, 1957. Subtitled “A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing”, it dealt” with the science of influencing one’s thoughts/pattern by “physiological mechanisms involved in fixing or destroying such beliefs (i.e. religious or political) in the human brain.”
My late friend Edward Hunter pioneered in the studies of Red Chinese “brainwashing” of U.S. POWS in Red Chinese (the Chinese words actually translated to “washing the mind” (cleansing it of previous thoughts and beliefs and instilling new ones, Marxism).
This PhD student is basically self-brainwashed into finding things that don’t exist or may only exist as shadows in her world.
PhD - new definition: Professional Head Dummy
I pity any guy who marries her, or even any woman who marries her. She’s a nutcase with a capital N.
Very different meanings for the word “philosophy”.... the contemporary academic discipline of philosophy is what remains after many other academic disciplines (including all of what we now call the natural “sciences”) have carved out their own turf over many generations.
Centuries ago, “natural philosophy” was a standard term referring to all of the intellectual terrain which would eventually become known as the natural sciences.
At the very old University of Cambridge (UK), there are still professorships of “natural philosophy” which are held by distinguished contemporary scientists, such as this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_Professor_of_Natural_Philosophy
A holdover from the 18th century, as is the “Doctor of Philosophy” term for the degree which is awarded in so many fields of research which have nothing to do with what is nowadays referred to as “philosophy.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.