| You're responding almost entirely to things I didn't say. > Research and data might make people feel bad, and not making people feel bad is obviously way more important than increasing knowledge. Not what I said at all, I said the standard for proof should be extremely high. High standards for proof != don't do research (though I admit I should have said so more clearly as I used the example of Summers without condemning what happened to him. He shouldn't have been drummed out for asking the questions.) > We can discontinue this policy when there is a 50/50 gender split among all STEM workers, educators, and investors. I assumed that the word "reasonable" was implied in what I was saying. But you're right, some people might propose absurd attempts to bring things in line. > 1+1=3. Doesn't matter if you can prove that 1+1=2. First of all, I was commenting on the standard by which we should accept 1+1=3, and which of the two (1+1=3 or 1+1=2) should be our acting hypothesis until we know. Secondly, I said we should act as if differences are due to bias _until long after_. I was arguing for the default standard, and when it would be acceptable to change the standard. I never said never. > Yep, unimaginable catastrophes. Are you actually ignorant of the human history of genocide, dismissal of female person-hood, and racially driven slavery? |