|
|
|
|
|
by aaron-lebo
3154 days ago
|
|
Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy. If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing. |
|
I'm not sure why you are so adamant about evidence here. Bloom is just one example of someone who did some research and put together an argument, which was then cited by Damore for a single point in a larger piece. I do believe that particular point is valid (as it's completely accepted in popular culture) but regardless the greater issue is that it can be discussed at all.
You seem to be saying that it shouldn't be discussed at all... because there's no evidence for it? People talk endless about many things that have no evidence and are purely conjecture, just to start exploring a certain perspective (which usually comes before the hard scientific research). Why is that a problem?