Joined: Nov. 2009
|Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:19)|
|Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:20)|
|Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)|
|Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)|
|Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.|
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.
Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).
Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.
its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.
"Insisting" it's true doesn't make it true, Booby. And yes, if you make assertions regarding demographics of sex and ethnicity, you need to demonstrate the validity of your claims--that's what science is all about. Oh, and I know you're wrong about "all" anthro students/professors being liberal democrats -- I have friends in the field at UCLA who are not democrats at all. I can prove that if need be -- because I prefer not to make empty claims based on nothing more than vapid assertions as you do, Booby.
Do you think that anthro departments are skewed in favor of males, Booby? How about graduates? Males? Females? PhD.'s? How about "skewed" in terms of ethnicity? More minorities than European-descent caucasians? what? What does "skewed" mean in your world, Booby ... one more male than females? 10% more? 50? Clarify yourself and start using data rather than vapid claims of pretending you know you're right.
So...have you ever suffered some form of brain trauma in your life, Bobby?
This isn't science. my assertion is from my knowledge. So its in good standing as a assertion. it doesn't mean you have to believe it.
One does not have to prove ones point to justify the assertion. only you can say your not persuaded by your knowledge.
i have seen heaps of stats about demagraphics in high sciences.
in fact they proudly make the point about the liberal democrat or liberal leanings. Ethnic/sex/immigrant ratios are common knowledge. If you don't know then simply do research. Not my job.
Skewed does not mean on purpose. i just mean results.
Anyways this is all about any profession is not a cross section of the people but can show deeper motivations and so change how one scores who's on whose side.
Evolution must make its case on the merits and likewise creationism.