Question of the Week – 04/10/2018

    3

    What’s one of the most egregious examples of the false equivalency of science and misinformation in the media that you’ve seen? It might be about climate change or evolution or something else entirely. Have you seen meaningful examples of pushback against this phenomenon?

    Our favorite answer will win a copy of Brief Candle in the Dark by Richard Dawkins.


    Want to suggest a Question of the Week? E-mail submissions to us at qotw@richarddawkins.net. (Questions only, please. All answers to bimonthly questions are made only in the comments section of the Question of the Week.)

    SIMILAR ARTICLES

    3 COMMENTS

    1. @OP – What’s one of the most egregious examples of the false equivalency of science and misinformation in the media that you’ve seen?

      I think a Trump false-news example is about to appear here!

      Republican countermeasures include a website, lyincomey.com, online advertising, television surrogates and a quick-reaction team.

      and here:-

      US President Donald Trump’s allies are mounting an online campaign to discredit a forthcoming memoir by former FBI director James Comey.

      According to excerpts of the book obtained by the Washington Post, Mr Comey writes that interactions with Mr Trump gave him “flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob. The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organisation above morality and above the truth”.

      The result was “the forest fire that is the Trump presidency”, he says.

      An interview with ABC News will be aired on Sunday, kicking off the book tour.

    2. I think one of the worst examples of false equivalences is the extreme feminist or politically correct ideological dogma, that all humans and both sexes have equal aptitudes, or potential aptitudes and abilities , in all subject areas!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43826143

      Closing gender gap in physics ‘will take generations’
      By Helen Briggs

      Closing the gender gap in physics will take hundreds of years, given the current rate of progress.

      That’s the finding of research analysing the names of authors listed on millions of scientific papers.

      Physics, computer science, maths and chemistry had the fewest women, while nursing and midwifery had the most.

      Without further interventions, the gender gap is likely to persist for generations, said scientists from the University of Melbourne.

      That would be SOCIAL SCIENTISTS not BIOLOGISTS OR MEDICAL RESEACHERS. . . and with quota-based interventions by the biologically illiterate politically-correct ideologists, assorted less able, and less psychologically suited people, could be manipulated into jobs ahead of those with more aptitude, and higher levels of skill! – to the detriment of the people AND the job!

      “Of the gender-biased disciplines, almost all are moving towards parity, though some are predicted to take decades or even centuries to reach it,” said Dr Cindy Hauser.

      As she was clearly indulging in wish-thinking from preconceptions!

      So with marginal effects from political manipulation and some minor cultural changes, being used for projections, events which are never going to happen (50:50 parity in all subjects), are predicted to “take centuries”!

      Number crunching

      The researchers used computer methods to analyse the genders of authors listed in databases (PubMed and ArXiv) containing thousands of scientific papers published over the past 15 years.

      They found that 87 of the 115 subjects examined had fewer than 45% women authors.

      Women are increasingly working in male-biased fields such as physics (17% women), while men are increasingly working in female-biased fields such as nursing (75% women).

      However, forecasts suggest it will take a very long time to close the gender gap in some fields, with predictions of 320 years for nursing, 280 years for computer science, 258 years for physics and 60 years for mathematics.

      Perhaps this could have been looked at on a more scientific basis, if the study had started with developmental sex differences in embryology and early childhood, rather than the preconception of interchangeable uni-persons who all have equal aptitudes!

      Equal opportunities to apply or develop actual aptitudes in individuals, is NOT equivalent to 50:50 sex quotas in all careers in all subjects!

      Differences in hormone levels, personalities, and mental development, mean that there are distinctly different sex-related aptitudes in the brains and the physical bodily capabilities of humans! – Particularly in areas such language skills, and the ability to handle spacial concepts.

      +++++++++++++++++++

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187892931300008X

      Sex differences and structural brain maturation from childhood to early adulthood

      Recent advances in structural brain imaging have demonstrated that brain development continues through childhood and adolescence. In the present cross-sectional study, structural MRI data from 442 typically developing individuals (range 8–30) were analyzed to examine and replicate the relationship between age, sex, brain volumes, cortical thickness and surface area. Our findings show differential patterns for subcortical and cortical areas. Analysis of subcortical volumes showed that putamen volume decreased with age and thalamus volume increased with age.
      Independent of age, males demonstrated larger amygdala and thalamus volumes compared to females. Cerebral white matter increased linearly with age, at a faster pace for females than males.
      Gray matter showed nonlinear decreases with age. Sex-by-age interactions were primarily found in lobar surface area measurements, with males demonstrating a larger cortical surface up to age 15, while cortical surface in females remained relatively stable with increasing age.
      The current findings replicate some, but not all prior reports on structural brain development, which calls for more studies with large samples, replications, and specific tests for brain structural changes.
      In addition, the results point toward an important role for sex differences in brain development, specifically during the heterogeneous developmental phase of puberty.

    3. Further to #2 I see that Helen Briggs is still being given BBC airtime to promote her ignorance of biology – and is repeating an incompetent claim from a cherry picked study – obviously conducted by those wearing bias-blinkers, and lacking even basic scientific research skills!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44141840

      How physics gender gap starts in the classroom

      Some progress has been made in encouraging girls to study physics at A-level, according to a report by the Institute of Physics (IoP).

      In 2016, 1.9% of girls chose A-level physics, up from 1.6% in 2011.

      But that compared with 6.5% for boys in 2016 and 44% of schools in England still send no girls at all to study the subject.

      The IoP said physics-based skills were essential for many future careers, from artificial intelligence to aerospace.

      However, the gender balance at physics A-level in England’s schools has changed little in decades, with only 20% being female.

      Which reflects the different aptitudes in the development of male and female brains!

      “There is no evidence to suggest any intrinsic differences in ability or interest to explain why girls and boys choose technical subjects differently,” said IoP President, Prof Dame Julia Higgins.

      Who had obviously failed to do even basic research on embryology and mental development! – but felt unrestrained in posing as an authority on biology and physics despite her profound ignorance!

      “The consequences of girls’ choices at school are that many rewarding and fulfilling routes are closed off to them.”

      Yep! Some people have more aptitude for some subject specialisms and careers than others – and some of these are sex-related!

      Perhaps with more objectivity, she might have noticed there are segregated events in some sports for the same reasons!

      SO: For the benefit of the biologically ignorant who publicly exhibit their ignorance abusing their positions on scientific bodies, pontificating on scientific subjects they have failed to competently research by asserting:-

      How physics gender gap starts in the classroom

      The physics gender gap STARTS IN THE EMBRYO!

    Leave a Reply

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.