Why is he considered one? He has a bachelor's in engineering yet is made out to be PhD level
>>8075265
Still better than BSM and Dawkins
>>8075265
Not really.
The only people he pisses off are anti-evolution, anti-vaxers, and climate denial retards. He's basically the anti-/pol/.
>>8075303
>The only people he pisses off are anti-evolution, anti-vaxers, and climate denial retards. He's basically the anti-/pol/.
wat
>>8075265
Just sick of threads complaining about pop science.
I don't mind Bill Nye but I can't stand BSM. Dude screams AA hire.
>Failed out of UT Austin graduate program
>muh racism of course
>immediately gets accepted to Columbia
>has done fuck all research wise since being handed his PhD
>exaggerates how well he knew carl sagan
>says Jayden tier bullshit babble on twitter
Who's bsm?
>>8075485
black science man
>>8075485
Super Genius Black Man
>>8075495
Why does he feel the need to always tweet about shit he knows nothing about?
>>8075502
woah, get a load of this badass. i don't see any brilliant solutions coming from you, genius.
t. vsauce connoisseur
>>8075502
He gets paid lots of money to talk about things he knows nothing about. Maybe his phone makes a "ka-ching" sound every time he tweets.
>>8075265
Stop being so jelly, LLUL
>>8075265
Are you implying one needs a PhD to be a published, employed scientist?
Also, who cares if he's got a doctorate, he's done more for science than most scientists.
>>8075485
Bondage, Sadism, and Masochism
>>8075506
this.
he probably thinks about all the cash he will get every time he opens hi mouth.
I would do it too if I got some good cah for it (I assume because he is known worldwide).
>>8075530
>he's done more for science than most scientists.
yeah dude, pass dat bong. XXDDD
>>8075265
Yeah, he came to my University once. All he did was try to push political agenda. He knew very little about frontier science. What a sellout!
Not surprised. I did a some research on his background. All he has a a bachelor's degree in ME and went to work for Disney as an entertainer.
Because people who are actually good at science and math don't usually go for a TV career
>>8075811
What all did he talk about?
>>8075818
"Change the world!"
"Change the world!"
"Change the world!"
"Change the world!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Here's a cool picture of a Mars rover!"
"Don't forget to vote!"
"Change the world!"
"Woah!"
"Woah!"
"Awesome!"
>>8075824
That is pretty underwhelming. To be fair he was just a children's show host and now that those kids grew up they think he still is the science guy.
>>8075830
Exactly. Most of the people that adore him were liberal arts majors or science majors that haven't met him in person.
/thread
>>8075310
>Dawkins
>Any significant research at all
I think the public figures like Nye and Tyson are important. while they don't contribute anything in the way of research they do get the general public interested in science. It may seem stupid to people that visit /sci/ but normies need them to explain obvious stuff to them and to get them excited about science. whether you like it or not normies do influence science, so it's important to keep them informed.
He's a shill, SJW, and cuck.
He gets like $35,000 speaker fees.
He shills the whole "MUH WOMEN NEED TO BE IN SCIENCE(even though nobody has literally ever stopped them and therefore it is entirely their own fault and they clearly just don't want to do it) TOO!!!
He doesn't know shit basically, just as all of these popular science dweebs know jack shit.
They all write a book every 3-5 years, go back to one of their three houses because they're just in it for the money, and post on twitter about shit they don't know anything about and make dumb people think they're smart, who then buy their new book.
They're all bullshit. I see through them, and they can go fuck themselves.
>>8075873
> normies do influence science
How do normies influence science?
>>8075265
>He has a bachelor's in engineering yet is made out to be PhD level
Implying you need a Ph.D to be a scientist. What is with /sci/ and scholastic elitism? If it weren't for this guy, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in science growing up. He got me interested in chem in the first place.
>>8075885
Consider the following: normies influenced the shit outta science when they threw a hissy fit over stem cell research. How far back did it set that field?
>>8075885
more "normies" that are into science and the more it manifests ourselves in pop culture, the more politicians will see science programs as public-friendly more apt to spend money.
Corporations too.
>>8075885
they vote the politicians in and the politicians influence how government money is spent and who gets funding.
You don't need a PhD to be a scientist. Getting a PhD only gets you waaaay closer to the expensive equipment you need to do high level shit. As other people have been saying, there is a lot to be said for him inspiring kids. I watched him all the time when I was young, thought he was awesome, knew I wanted to do science all my life, and now I'm getting a PhD in chemistry myself.
He was a major influence on recent graduates. Who cares if he has a PhD or not?
>>8075898
That is a double-edged sword. When things in science don't align to what normies "feel" is true, you get crazy post-modern ideas, influenced by science, but far from anything empirical.
>>8075265
You must be new here
>>8075885
Anything that's unpopular gets shunned while other ideas that aren't offensive to the government or normiea get funding. You've never seen a popular study that goes against the constant global warming or smoking-related fearmongering because of it.
I thought Bill Nye was alright, I watched him a bit in my childhood. But after this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0kgIHxkMS8 , I'm done. He was already starting to become unhinged but now he is totally discredited.
>>8076325
He's just a tool now. I liked his show as a kid as well. It's sad. I think Tyson is better. He doesn't push politics as much as Bill.
>>8075303
amazing how dozens of people can make their who careers out of banality and circlejerking on tv about how much better than those obvious retarded 0.001% of the population. the audience gets to join in too!
>>8075537
He's certainly done more than this shitposter
>>8075505
kek
>>8075303
>>8075265
I'm glad we don't have mongs like him where I live
the only 'public scientist' we have is director of princeton or something
>>8075265
Bill Nye the Science guy! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!
>>8077117
Bi-i-i-il nyethe sci-ence-guy-uy,
bi-bi-bi-bill nyethe sci-ence guyyyyyy
desuahobakaniichan
He's a promoter of the scientific method and an autodidactic researcher.
Technically, you don't have to have a degree or lab to be a scientist.
Scientist is actually an ambiguous term for someone that promotes or utilizes the scientific method.
Scientist, researcher, doctor of science, professor, professional, etc...
These are all different terms with very different meanings.
Don't get it twisted.
>>8075303
1.) Although evolution is a scientific fact, the specifics of it are still being hotly debated.
>eg; how much random chance plays a part in the process, epigenetics, nature becomes nurture and vice versa
2.) There were some serious issues with early vaccinations that left people crippled. The paranoia was justified, although no longer.
3.) 50% of climate change claims have been proven incorrect and dramatised. 30 years ago they were talking about the New Ice Age and 20 years ago they were talking about the Ozone Hole.
It's an infallible fact humans do less damage than cattle to the climate.
This has been scientifically measured and no scientist disagrees with it.
A real scientist would be completely aware of all these absolute facts.
You're an "internet propagandist" social climber, nothing more.
I bet you don't even know how scientific review works.
>>8075265
Most scientists like him. He literally only echos the accepted scientific thinking. He rarely speaks outside of his depth and instills good values in the public. You do't need a Ph.D. to be smart or understand science and the only people who insist this is an issue are his critics outside of science.
>>8075265
Because he's a great science communicator. Whats your problem with that?
>>8077152
Aren't a lot of those cattle there because of we humans? That kind of lumps their climate impact in with us, in my opinion.
>>8075876
Oh, LOTS of people have stopped women from getting into science, the same way they used to stop women getting into top-level orchestras.
I am not sure if he knows shit, but you certainly do.
>scientist
>a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Where is the PhD prerequisite mentioned here? I can't find it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy7GOO7Y96Y
This pisses me off more than bowtie man ever did.
I hate mainstream American media with such a burning fucking passion.
>>8077343
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.fi/2006/11/humans-in-charge-of-98-of-terrestrial.html
>>8077343
https://youtu.be/4Q_mY54hjM0?t=10m30s
John R. Horner spent 7 years as an undergrad and never even got his B.S., but he's still a damn amazing paleontologist.
>>8075885
not only do normies influence policy and therefore funding, but occasionally they or their children are so inspired by the wonders of the natural world that they up and study science themselves.
>>8077152
Probably b8, but I'll take it.
1. You just vomited out a string of words that make no sense. Evolution is ENTIRELY driven by random chance; where do you think that variation comes from? RANDOM mutation! Epigenetics isn't related that closely to evolution; maybe you're thinking of epistasis? Anyway, the point is that Darwin and Wallace had the fundamental facts straight; the only real debate is "which of these forcings is driving this observed change".
2. Care to cite some examples? You may be thinking of people paralyzed from poliomyelitis, which was...one of the first diseases WIDELY PREVENTED by vaccination programs.
3. 50% of climate change claims? How do you quantify that?
And you're just parroting back the same old denier memes now. No, there wasn't a consensus of cooling back in the 1970s; scientists then predicted warming for the most part, and a few studies predicting cooling IFF we didn't do something about aerosol emissions (which we did) were overreported on by the media. The ozone hole was and is a thing, but that has little to do with global warming and is mostly just an issue of chlorofluorocarbons being used as aerosol propellants.
>It's an infallible fact humans do less damage than cattle to the climate.
>This has been scientifically measured and no scientist disagrees with it.
okay now this is DEFINITELY b8. 7/10, made me mad.
>>8077712
goddammit pauadfaslla sstttopp it owww owww oww stopppp fdsfuck ibsfds mesllttttttinnnnggg
>>8076325
So you were unaware of world events, and react angrily when your ignorance is rubbed in your face?
What did he mean by this?
>>8075502
This is obviously satire.
>>8077712
>Paula Deen
>lightly frying anything
>shitposting on /sci/
>my life is pathetic
>>8077946
Billy is a swinger, clearly
>>8075495
>>8075303
He also makes other claims that are far worse supported, such as wishful thinking about the equality of all humans, not only concerning rights but also concerning potential and capability. In the nature vs. nurture debate, he's firmly in camp nurture.
>>8075890
A bachelor's degree means you learned about a subject. That means jack shit. A Ph.D is proof that you can expand your field in an independent and novel way.
>>8078238
Sure, in theory. In reality, many people just add epsilon to a small part of the field.
Having written a PhD on the chemistry of a certain slime mold wouldn't have made Bill Nye any more of an authority than he is today, except on the issue of the chemistry of slime molds.
>>8078923
I'll reiterate: He'd have proven he can expand his field without being held by the hand like a measly undergrad. A Ph.D. is not about the specific topic you studied (although it helps when claiming expertise), but acts as a general signifier of research ability. You could research slime molds, so you can also research any other shitty niche.
>>8078963
I think he's expanded more fields through his educational work than he could ever have done in phd research. His TV show first aired over 20 years ago and there are Ph.Ds out there working right now who were partly inspired by his show.
That said I think he really hasn't done much of worth since then and that he should stop talking out his ass about things he knows nothing about.
>>8077946
Do I even need to say "the C word"
> most of the people that made major contributions to the advancement of the human race, including scientific advances, don't have a Phd
> if you don't have a Phd you aren't smart
why are you discussing this when you clearly didn't pass Logic & Reasoning l in your first undergraduate semester?
>>8079086
this so much
academia is fucking overrated
>>8075818
Not him, but at my school he talked about his Astronomy club, sundials (shit ton of sundials), and changing the world.
I enjoyed seeing him.
I think he answered someone's question about fighting duck sized horses or a horse sized duck
People forget that he worked on the Mars Rover.
>>8077717
At what point did you realize you wrote a fucking stupid comment? Was it the moment you defended the video, you pinnacle of "intelligence".
>>8079086
I think it matters when a engineer is being pushed by the media as a scientist to preach propaganda
>>8080130
Why? Most people couldn't care less.
And he's not. He's a science guy.
It's from his days being a stand up comedian
>>8075833
you can't /thread your own comment m8
>>8076316
>popularity
My God, you're right. Everything is about popularity to the scientifically illiterate. It all depends on their feelings. What a fragile world we live in where as long as people will "feel" something is right or wrong, it will be made so.
Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist. He hasn't contributed anything to particular field (he did build some sort of pressure suppressor for a 747) and is now seen as the modern "face of science" in a sort of memey joke. There are plenty of scientists that are currently doing great research that no one will ever hear of because people are too obsessed with the guy that helped them get out of middle school science class than actual scientific research.
pol was right, the nose knows
>why is he considered one?
>has BS
>better looking than you OP
>>8080167
>>has BS
yup he's full of it.
>>8075265
>He only has a BS
>I'll soon have 2 BSs and a BA
Looks like I'm twice as good as him
>>8080177
>has three degrees
>can't do multiplication
>>8080184
It was a casual joke about BAs more than anything. Grade padding is what it was.
>>8079081
Since when does having sex with multiple women make someone a cuck?
>>8080148
To be fair, he's right.
We should see half scientists be female and half be male, but be based on merit. That is to say, ideally, we should see both performing and aspiring towards the same thing with regards to science.
>>8080128
Is this before or after you found out you didn't know whats been going on in Syria, and reacted angrily when you realized a popsci guy knows more than you?
>>8080201
>To be fair, he's right.
To be fair he isn't and neither are you. Sexual dimorphism is a thing, and its sphere of influence is both biological and psychological.
>>8080220
Except it shouldn't be as bad as it is today.
The average male might be a couple IQ points higher than the average female, but there's still plenty of women smarter than you.
>>8080220
>Sexual dimorphism is a thing
It's very small in humans. The fact that things like gender ratio in science vary enormously between countries should be a pretty big clue that this is primarily a cultural thing, not a biological one.
>>8080225
>Except it shouldn't be as bad as it is today.
Why, exactly? There shouldn't be any appreciable change in genetics due to the fact selective pressure doesn't exist anymore. There is no reason for women to "get smarter," or men to, "get dumber." And a, "couple of points," can mean the difference between understanding a vital scientific concept or not, anyway.
>There are women smarter than you!
I love how you immediately go for the individual/averages bait-and-switch fallacy.
>>8080228
>It's small in humans.
No it isn't.
>It varies enormously between countries...
Yeah, that proves the sub-speciation of humans, as well. It doesn't not disprove sexual dimorphism.
>It's cultural...
Again, no, considering how much culture changes in the last fifty years. If it were so you'd see drastic changes between men and women, yet we do not. Only attitudes. Not psychology or biology.
>>8080146
>Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist.
>and is now seen as the modern "face of science" in a sort of memey joke.
He's a science educator, which is still a very import thing.
>There are plenty of scientists that are currently doing great research that no one will ever hear of because people are too obsessed with the guy that helped them get out of middle school science class than actual scientific research.
Are you seriously going to try and claim that the reason that the general public doesn't care about current research is that someone tried to explain basic science to them on the TV?
That doesn't make any fucking sense at all.
>>8080231
>the fact selective pressure doesn't exist anymore.
Where are you getting this shit from?
>And a, "couple of points," can mean the difference between understanding a vital scientific concept or not, anyway.
The IQ variation between genders is far smaller than the IQ variation between practising scientists.
>No it isn't.
Yes it is. The difference between genders in psychological tests is generally very small. Even small external (often cultural) factors can overwhelm it.
>Yeah, that proves the sub-speciation of humans, as well.
You can't be fucking serious.
>Again, no, considering how much culture changes in the last fifty years. If it were so you'd see drastic changes between men and women, yet we do not
We DO see massive changes in gender ratios in many jobs over the last fifty years.
>Only attitudes. Not psychology or biology.
What? Why would you expect to see biological changes on that timescale?
>>8080231
>There shouldn't be any appreciable change in genetics due to the fact selective pressure doesn't exist anymore.
Except in the past we've had plenty of problems with culture and women being kinda bound to households. It's not only genetic problems.
>I love how you immediately go for the individual/averages bait-and-switch fallacy.
There is no fallacy there. You can pretend that women are dumb because they are on average dumber, but individuals is all that matters.
>No it isn't.
Women aren't twice the size of men dumbass.
>Yeah, that proves the sub-speciation of humans
There are huge variation between countries that are literally bordering with similar demographics.
>Again, no, considering how much culture changes in the last fifty years
I see plenty of change from fifty years ago.
>>8080231
>it doesn't not disprove sexual dimorphism.
>doesn't not disprove
disgusting
>>8080231
But it has changed anon
>>8080243
>Where are you getting this shit from?
Do you know the definition of selective pressure and how it relates to evolution? I'm not going any further with this until you figure this part out.
>>8080245
>Except in the past we've had plenty of problems with culture and women being kinda bound to households. It's not only genetic problems.
In what parts of history? Ones where physical aptitude is the reason why men worked the fields? Only recently have we been in a modern era where women could have a job in the first place.
>There's no fallacy here...
There is. You just pointed out exactly why you can't figure it out, too.
>Women aren't twice the size of men dumbass.
Brilliant. Stopped reading.
>>8080249
Prove it.
>There are people on /sci/ right now that think culture shapes our biology and psychology and not vice versa.
>>8080251
>In what parts of history?
Most? I don't think being kept in households to take care of children and being mostly subservient to men gives much intellectual prospects.
>Ones where physical aptitude is the reason why men worked the fields?
Women actually often worked in the fields too, retad. The problem is the prestigious jobs and education wasn't really available for women.
>There is. You just pointed out exactly why you can't figure it out, too.
There is no fallacy there, retard. Basically it means that people who are passionate should be allowed and encouraged into science and there are plenty of women capable enough since even the WONDERFUL 100% RELIABLE IQ says they are a couple points below on average. And also it means that there are plenty of women smarter than the /pol/ guy.
>Brilliant. Stopped reading.
You don't understand the examples of actually big sexual dimorfizm in nature.
>>8080243
>Yeah, that proves the sub-speciation of humans, as well.
>You can't be fucking serious.
Lets make this simple, do you think all humans have neanderthal and denisovan DNA?
>>8080264
>I don't think being kept in households to take care of children and being mostly subservient to men gives much intellectual prospects.
This is a joke, right? Right? Have you studied history at all? Honestly, I stopped reading here. Before the industrial revolution women held multiple jobs, up to and including working in the fields with the men. Hell, most of them made dairy products and traditionally kept the profit of their work.
Honestly, I stopped reading at that point. If you got this much wrong I don't know how to help you.
>>8080264
>The problem is the prestigious jobs and education wasn't really available for women.
The world's, "First feminist," Christine de Pizan was highly educated and a prolific writer. That was the 14th century. Ada Laplace, the world's, "First Programmer," needs no introduction. And education was denied to an overwhelming number of men, as well. Like, over 90%. Not because of cultural attitudes, but because people need to work the fields. This is some circular logic you're pushing here.
>>8080270
>including working in the field
Which was what you or at least the previous poster implied didn't happen.
I guess that's also we needed to allow women to vote too. You are a joke. You think that somehow having a job means that the problems relating to seeing women more as a household keeper type of family member are gone.
>>8080273
>The world's, "First feminist," Christine de Pizan was highly educated and a prolific writer. That was the 14th century. Ada Laplace, the world's, "First Programmer," needs no introduction. And education was denied to an overwhelming number of men, as well. Like, over 90%. Not because of cultural attitudes, but because people need to work the fields. This is some circular logic you're pushing here.
You are giving singular cases. Women were always culturally pushed into more stable type of life without much intellectual pursuit.
>>8080277
>Which was what you or at least the previous poster implied didn't happen.
No, I didn't. I explicitly said there was sexual dimorphism. I also said men are smarter than women, on the average, and that's the indication why there are more male scientists than women. The idea it should be perfectly 50/50 is ridiculous and has nothing to do with cultural norms. There are clear and present differences between the sexes and the demonstrate themselves regardless of your political beliefs or excuses put on culture.
>>8080278
>Women were always culturally pushed into more stable type of life without much intellectual pursuit.
By who?
>inb4 "society"
You mean biology. You mean pregnancy. You mean sexual dimorphism and all that it entails, up to and including a nurturing instinct to stay at home and raise children.
>inb4 it's sexist to say a female of the "great apes" has a nurturing instinct
>>8080251
>Do you know the definition of selective pressure and how it relates to evolution? I'm not going any further with this until you figure this part out.
Yes, I do. Selection pressure on current humans is actually quite large.
>>8080256
Culture absolutely affects psychology. Why do think different counties suffer from different rates and types of mental illness?
Someone could make a pretty compelling case that culture impacts biology, too, via things like stress, nutrition and physical activity.
>>8080264
>and there are plenty of women capable enough since even the WONDERFUL 100% RELIABLE IQ says they are a couple points below on average.
Women going into science aren't "a few points bellow average", they're way above average (as are men going to into science). Heck, I don't have data for it, but given the strong gender bias I'd guess that they're actually above the average for men going into science too.
>>8080268
>Lets make this simple, do you think all humans have neanderthal and denisovan DNA?
That's not what "sub-speciation" means.
>>8080273
>Ada Laplace, the world's, "First Programmer," needs no introduction.
Programming wasn't historically considered prestigious. Also, you're trying to argue from examples.
>And education was denied to an overwhelming number of men, as well.
Okay, I'll bite: What education was denied to men on the basis of gender?
Because arguing that gender biases didn't exist because education was rare anyway is absurd. That's like claiming that because few people become famous painters, a blind person has the same chance as a sighted person.
>>8080279
>I also said men are smarter than women, on the average, and that's the indication why there are more male scientists than women.
Except, multiple people have already pointed out that that hypothesis is bullshit.
The gender disparity among scientists is vastly larger than than the IQ difference between men and women. And the gender ratio varies strongly between cultures.
>>8080279
>No, I didn't. I explicitly said there was sexual dimorphism.
And also gave the case of men apparently working in fields without women in sight. Of course apparently women working in field were okay even though they are much weaker than dumber than men.
> The idea it should be perfectly 50/50 is ridiculous and has nothing to do with cultural norms
Which basically the first poster you disagree with says it should be based on merit.
>By who?
By cultural norms that currently push you into doing shit like going to certain types of jobs in a suit.
>You mean biology. You mean pregnancy. You mean sexual dimorphism and all that it entails, up to and including a nurturing instinct to stay at home and raise children.
The problem is women were supposed and were pushed by for example families into getting married and having children as their life goal. Those instincts are so important than in the current society you have rabid feminism that never wants to touch no man and have children.
>>8080287
>What education was denied to men on the basis of gender?
Yeah, that's not a loaded question.
>>8080287
>Except, multiple people have already pointed out that that hypothesis is bullshit.
Yeah. Exactly. The group is always right!
Also...
>Actually trying to apply a linear difference between IQ and number of scientists.
kek
I thought /sci/ was smart?
>>8080290
>And also gave the case of men apparently working in fields without women in sight.
No. I did not. Someone else brought that up. I did not. At least follow the conversation. The person who brought it up was arguing AGAINST sexual dimorphism then literally brought up evidence of it, arguing it was REAL to... somehow... get to culture being the real reason?
Is this a fucking troll?
>Which basically the first poster you disagree with says it should be based on merit.
It is? There's plenty of female scientists already. There is no justification for it being 50/50 especially considering the differences in biology.
>By cultural norms that currently push you into doing shit like going to certain types of jobs in a suit.
By who? Why are you pushing conspiracy level material as an argument?
>The problem is women were supposed and were pushed by for example families into getting married and having children as their life goal.
How is that a problem?
>Those instincts are so important than in the current society you have rabid feminism that never wants to touch no man and have children.
No, seriously, is this a troll?
every board on 4chan is people vickering and badmouthing everything this is actually really sad i come to /sci/ in hope for something different but no fucking way .
its the same shit taste in my mouth after scrolling through a few threads
>>8080301
>I can't handle passionate open debate and freedom of speech.
Well, Reddit is a webpage away. Must be tough having such a thin skin that words on a computer screen throw you into a tail spin, though.
>>8080292
>Yeah, that's not a loaded question.
How is it loaded? Someone pointed out that women were traditionally denied education. You replied that men were too.
>>8080295
>Yeah. Exactly. The group is always right!
The "pointing out" may have been a little more important than the "multiple" in that sentence.
>Actually trying to apply a linear difference between IQ and number of scientists.
>kek
Where did I use the word linear?
>I thought /sci/ was smart?
Is this your first day here?
>>8080298
>There's plenty of female scientists already.
That's news to me, last I checked they were a minority group.
>There is no justification for it being 50/50 especially considering the differences in biology.
There's even less justification for it being 10/90, or whatever the current value is.
Seriously, if you want to argue that women should be >50% of sciences "because biology", why don't you have a go at figuring out out what the a-cultural gender ratio WOULD be?
>>8080303
>I can't handle passionate open debate and freedom of speech.
Hah, as if there's any of that here.
>>8080195
When the female has sex with multiple men.
>>8080298
>No. I did not. Someone else brought that up. I did not. At least follow the conversation. The person who brought it up was arguing AGAINST sexual dimorphism then literally brought up evidence of it, arguing it was REAL to... somehow... get to culture being the real reason?
You are a fucking retard. The guy who brought it up was for sexual dimorfizm
>It is? There's plenty of female scientists already. There is no justification for it being 50/50 especially considering the differences in biology.
It's probably not completely with ratios still skewed especially in less developed countries. Even IQ tests don't really provide any proof for it.
>By who?
Are you retarded? Do you not understand cultural standards? How the fuck is that a conspiracy. Other people affect you. If everyone thinks that you should go to this type of job in a suit you oughta go in a suit or you worse your social standing.
>How is that a problem?
That's precisely why women in past especially weren't as prominent in science or anything prestigious really. Men having a life goal of just doing whatever he likes way more socially acceptable than a woman.
>No, seriously, is this a troll?
No. I am showing you how women weren't the household keepers just because their instincts wanted them to be so. Fucking Newton had an instinct to fuck as a man and yet he was a virgin. Human instincts in the end aren't that important.
>>8080309
>How is it loaded?
Because it precludes the fact the reasoning wasn't primarily about gender.
>The "pointing out" may have been a little more important than the "multiple" in that sentence.
Semantics.
>Where did I use the word linear?
More semantics.
>Is this your first day here?
Goddamn it. Stopped reading.
>>8080309
>Seriously, if you want to argue that women should be >50% of sciences "because biology", why don't you have a go at figuring out out what the a-cultural gender ratio WOULD be?
>implying anyone should have to waste their time with this.
Why?
>>8080313
Cultural standards don't arise in a vacuum. A group of gender-less people don't decide one day, "Hey, you half are going to be the uneducated and be prisoners in a home," then that results in a weaker sex. Goes the other way around.
why do you even care
It's because of that piece of shit bill Maher
>>8080318
Actually the reason why it has arisen has probably little to do with women being weak and more to do with birthrates.
Which again we don't need high fertility rates in the current world.
>>8080315
>Because it precludes the fact the reasoning wasn't primarily about gender.
What.
In many places, women were EXPLICITLY BANNED from attending higher education. How the fuck is that "not primarily about gender"?
>Goddamn it. Stopped reading.
That's nice.
>>8080317
>implying anyone should have to waste their time with this.
If you want to claim that things are the way they are "because biology", you KINDA ought to actually sit down and figure out exactly how much of a roll biology is actually playing.
Otherwise "because biology" can be used to defend literally any aspect of culture.
>>8080318
>Cultural standards don't arise in a vacuum.
No, a shitload of factors go into them. That doesn't make them ideal though, and it definitely doesn't imply that cultural views from history are beneficial NOW.
>>8080318
u sure women didn't evolve to become weaker and dumber because of cultural roles anon? maybe goes the other way around.
>>8075298
>BSM and Dawkins
Dawkins is actually a scientist even though he does a lot of publicity shit. NDGT is just a populist, just check his twitter. A lot of poptard PC bullshit. Dawkins actually has critical thinking.
>>8080312
So you're allowed to have sex with multiple women, but your wife is only allowed to have sex with you?
And you people are trying to claim that gender biases don't exist?
He designed air plane parts at boeing, what more do you want. You didn't need a doctorate for that in his time.
>>8075811
He didn't talk to you about science in a hard way cause it wasn't the venue.
He did a lecture for the fluid mechanics course at Cornell as a guest lecturer. Pretty on point but he did ham it up a bit.
>>8080256
>There are people on /sci/ right now that think culture shapes our biology and psychology and not vice versa
I have one word for you anon, Nutrition.
Nutrition is one of the biggest factors in influencing our biology and has/can be easily dictated by culture. This isn't an opinion this is a fact covered by years of academic research.
So yeah those arguing culture can influence biology are in the right. I'd even argue personally that many on this board are underestimating the influence culture can have on biology and particularly psychology.
But since psychology (and sociology) has more issues in reproducing results than other fields I can understand why they hold said field/results suspect.
But the Nutrition issue does provide validation to their argument, even if anons who do bring up the argument fail to mention.
>>8075265
Apparently he told some little kid to fuck off when the kid asked for a autograph.
Honestly from what I've seen he isn't even a very respected scientist he's just well known because of his show back in the 90's.
>>8075298
Tyson seems like a good enough guy he's just autistic when it comes to some of his commentary on media.
Dawkins I really don't have a problem with sometimes he can a bit heated but considering some of the people he talks to I can't blame him.
>>8075303
I wasn't aware /pol/ disbelieved in any of this things.
>>8080201
No, equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal outcome.
>>8075833
>gets kids interested in science
>makes it seem fun and wonderful
>which it is
>while people on an anonymous image board complain that normie retards who aren't scientists think he is one
why does anyone fucking care? he did something good with his existence
>>8081088
>why does anyone fucking care?
I don't know. The shitters running around on /sci/ seem to get incredibly mad at anything that looks like public education.
