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 ...
I used to talk to the Pre Meds at VCU once a year for several years. In 10 to 20 years folks are gonna be surprised when they need a doctor. Let me just say a white male MD essentially won’t exist in 20 years.
Classic "Fallacy of a Small Sample" is seen even in qualitative research.
Might be interesting to know the background and experience of those on her PhD committee and that of the Dean of Education.
For some strange reason this drivel got me thinking about Cambodia under Pol Pot.
I think it was Aristotle that said: “you can resolve any argument in less than 10 minutes if you first define the terms”.
Unfortunately our language is getting more bastardized by the day - a lot of it on purpose in order to propagandize and confuse us.
Your distinction of truth vs fact is a case in point. The two are often used as synonyms and even defined as synonyms in thesauruses.
Much of the relativism that plagues us today is the result of the prevalence and dominance of postmodernism (what a stupid name) at the colleges and universities, especially in the liberal arts.
You might appreciate and enjoy this audiobook by Stephen Hicks available in Youtube that describes and then takes a wrecking ball to that pathetic “philosophy”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcSb6VCRoMc
This confirms my long held belief that radical feminist and radical minority groups are out of touch with, and cannot accept reality.
Fascinating observation, and sounds like a worthy study and dissertation in and of itself.
“Fascinating observation, and sounds like a worthy study and dissertation in and of itself.”
It’s already been done. The source of this nonsense is the philosophy of postmodernism, which dominates colleges and universities.
Here’s an audiobook in youtube that does an excellent job of describing postmodernism and how it has created this insane new world. The good news is that it won’t last, not if there’s at least one nation that manages to retain its sanity. I think you will enjoy it and it will help you make sense of the madness, like the article in this post, that surrounds us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcSb6VCRoMc
“And,she will vote”
Worse, she may reproduce.
I won’t be so polite as to call Mx. Parsons ‘feminist’. Because she’s not. She’s a “misandrist”. Plain and simple.
Obviously the author was describing herself and extrapolated her limited abilities to others. I have worked with women scientists for 30 years and detected no more lack of logic or objectivity than the men i worked with.
>>May I tar and feather her?
In a just world, Yes.
>>Laura Parson, on the other hand, is an idiot.
Objectively true, nothing subjective about it!
That's not really a silver lining. It means she is only qualified to teach the next generation.
Also, I think the idea that women are emotional and men are not is complete BS. I believe men are just as emotional (and illogical at times) as women: They just don't display their emotions as openly as women do.
Not necessarily. With tenure, the only way most professors leave a university is through retirement. Even then, they often stick around as professors emeritus, never really leaving until they pass on. There are few openings in academia, and many applicants.
Even in the sciences, graduate students are groomed for a career in academia. It is ridiculous, given the difficulty of landing a faculty position. For us, however, there are plenty of opportunities outside of academia.
Also, I think the idea that women are emotional and men are not is complete BS.
When making decisions, there are people who weight emotional considerations more heavily than logical/rational considerations, and vice versa. I think that women tend to be more emotion driven, and men more logic driven. Feminists and radical leftists, however, actively discourage people from making reason-based decisions. They decry reason and logic as too "patriarchal." This is the same kind of dynamic used to keep black people poor and oppressed--except that they have to eschew the qualities of successful people, because it makes them "too white."
So this is why Asians do so poorly in STEM subjects. Who woulda thought?
This woman is an example of a perfect libtard ass. She INSULTS those of us who are women in science or who teach science. Tell her incredibly stupid nonsense to Marie Curie, Irene Curie, Gerty Cori, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Dorothy Hodgkin, Rosalyn Yalow, Barbara McClintock, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Gertrude Elion, Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Linda Buck, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, Ada Yonath, Elizabeth Blackburn & Carol Greider, and May-Britt Moser-—all of whom won the Nobel Prize in some field of science.
What good is a PHD in education if the candidate is an idiot?
A pole dancer with a PH.D.! Going to pay off her student loans in ones and five dollar bills.
Fail! Hope the dissertation is rejected.
Any one who believes in global warming is at least partial proof of this idea.
Her thesis is an poor attempt at refuting the entire basis of Western thought and culture for the last 2,500 years, a system that has brought us untold miracles of science. What a genius this woman is.
LOL!!! Well stated.
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.