Centerfield

I'm starting to think that people, even college graduates, are fundamentally uncomfortable with any statistic more comfortable than averages. The notion of variability and dispersion seems to be too complicated to bring up to a mass audience, and it inevitably is misunderstood, to the detriment of whoever is relying on such statistics to make an argument.

I agree with Pinker here. My initial thoughts when I first read about the brewing controversy over Summer's comments were along the same lines.

However, I don't agree with MWS's conclussion.

Questioning the reigning paradigm, regardless of what it may be at the time, is risky. Conformity is given a far greater value among scientists than most of them would probably like to admit to themselves, much less to anyone else.

A small example which involves my great grandfather (Mellish): http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf083/sf083a04.htm

BTW, what is your given name?

I thought I had changed the set up thing on Moving Type. My name is Marc Schneider and I thought I had changed the set up so that it would show up under that, but apparently not.

Science supposedly exists to question the reigning paradigm. Otherwise, you would never have Galileo and we would still think the sun revolved around the earth, we would not have evolution. And, in fact, it wasn't the scientific consensus Summers was questioning. There is a lot of science that suggests there are genetically-based gender differences--it doesn't mean, obviously, that these explain all variation between men or women or that some variation isn't due to social factors. I think it's sad that academics are afraid to debate ideas. Of course, that might be explained by what Pinker calls the "taboo bias."

I certainly do agree that challenging reigning paradigms is what science is supposed to be about. But, scientists are human. And, in my experience humans who can't or won't admit their own inevitable biases to themselves are the least able to compensate for their biases and achieve a measure of objectivity. Academic knowledge and training make a scientist. But, neither guarantees objectivity.

Not to be pedantic about things, but Steven Pinker is not a biologist - his degrees are in psychology.

And yes, I think he (and Rick) has some good points here. Popular understanding of statistical concepts is pretty close to non-existent.

Regarding science and paradigms: I don't know that I'd agree that "challenging reigning paradigms is what science is supposed to be about". Figuring out how and why the natural world works the way it does is what I suspect most scientists think science is about - sometimes that corresponds to challenging current prevalent ideas, sometimes not.

Science as it is currently practiced places great value on successfully challenging reigning paradigms, in part because it places great obstacles in front of those challenges. If you want to upend a large existing body of thought, you'd better have a damned persuasive case worked out, and be willing to defend it vigorously.

I was disappointed at how this all unfolded, how it became a witch hunt. Summers remarks did not trouble me within the context in which they were stated, but that didn't stop some people from lighting up the torch and starting a witch hunt.

Summers didn't get everything right, but he was in a rational ballpark. It looks like he may well endure, but his presidency has been wouuunded, and his opponents are leaning on the "how can he lead now" argument. I don't know if it was Pinker or someone else who said that the important thing is that the nature and causes of performance differences by gender must be determined by research, not fatwa. Hopefully some good will come of this in exposing people to bopth the ongoing argument and the nature and limits of the evidence we currently have.

Here's the thing: men and women are not the same, although in many important respects we are substantially the same. And in the areas in which we are different, long live those differences.

I really wasn't trying to argue about scientific paradigms so much as I was decrying the unwillingness to debate social issues on a rational basis and the rapidity with which people condemned Summers without really hearing what he had to say. I think if this is how academics handle things like this, then the whole enterprise is a sham.

There seems to be a sufficient level of understanding of what Summers was saying among the posters here, so I won't get into that.

What I will get into is what I think some of the people who reacted badly to what he said may have heard, and that is something like this:

"You, Professor Smith, as a woman, cannot possibly be as good a scientist as Professor Jones, who is a man."

I don't know that we necessarily can atribute this sort of hyper-sensitivity and defensiveness displayed by a few people to the academic community as a whole.

As an aside, is the point of science the betterment of mankind through the expansion of our knowledlge of the physical/natural world, or is it the expansion of our knowledge of the physical/natural world for its own sake? Is it a means to an end or an end unto itself?

It's both. For one thing, often knowledge for the sake of knowledge leads to improvements in the human condition. I mean, what is really the point of theoretical physics other than simply understanding how things work. I don't think the point is to develop a time machine. But the more you learn about nature, inevitably there will be spillover into real life at some point.

The point about not attributing defensiveness to the academic community as a whole misses the point. Summers is under fire at Harvard for his comments. It' obviously more than a few people who are reacting badly. I haven't heard anyone criticizing Nancy Hopkins for overreacting.

The old saw is that the reason campus politics is so vicious is because the states are so low.

That aside, I hesitate to make any characterizations about academics as whole based on this. I think it's a vocal minority that saw Summers statements as an opportunity to push their agenda. If they push for resignation or censure, they get a wounded adversary and additional targeted funding for women. Plus, the controversy has had a lightning rod effect of drawing out all of Summers critics.

I would take that to mean that science is a means to an end, even if it is purely theoretical, based on what you have written. In asking the question, I did not mean to imply that I wanted to know if, say, Newton specifically wanted to build a rocket or the like when he explored mechanics. It was really bait to lead into another notion that I put forth in the previous thread started back in January on this topic. Specifically, could there be any social or political consideration that should deter one from exporing a particular scientific subject?

I'm also not sure what point is being missed in questioning whether the defensiveness of Summers' detractors can be attributed to the academic community as a whole. That the defensiveness of Summers' detractors can be attributed to the academic community as a whole is simply the point being addressed ("...then the whole enterprise is a sham."). That there are more than a few people reacting badly or that no one is criticizing Hopkins is not what I was questioning. (I suppose you could say that were I to pull my car into my garage, that I've missed my living room, even if I weren't attempting to drive into my living room. It would be silly, but you could say it.)

My last one was a reply to MWS, not bk (like you couldn't have figured that out).