What are Laws of Nature?

[polymath257]

First, let's separate the sciences that study humans from those that do not.

For the sciences that do not, are the conclusions invalidated because women are under-represented in the sciences?

I would say not, although because of lack of diversity (and thereby for alternative explanations), the progress will be slower. Any time intelligent people are excluded from participating, the progress of science will slow. But, I also believe the correct conclusions eventually arise, are tested, and are accepted.

It should be pointed out that new ideas in science are *always* challenged and 'put through a wringer'. That is how it should be and does not, in and of itself, represent bias. It is important that the new ideas be challenged, compared to available evidence, be subject to criticism (even harsh criticism), etc. This is how science is, and should be done. And it is true for men who propose new ideas (Gould and Eldridge for Punctuated Equilibria come to mind) as it is for women and other groups.

For those sciences that *do* study humans, the male bias is much more pronounced and dangerous. Again, lack of diversity is the basic problem, along with the default assumption that 'all people are like me'. Because of this, situations where men and women differ in their responses (diseases, social responsibilities, etc) will not be studied in the ways necessary for the correct application to women. As your articles point out, the health of women is harmed by this bias. But, in the same way, the health of those of under-represented races is also harmed for the same reasons.

These are situations where, because the studies are not suitably designed, the conclusions derived can be wrong and dangerous for those not part of the study. To some degree, it comes down to realizing that race or gender can be a relevant factor for care.

But let's be clear. The basic ideas of science: that we need to test our ideas and challenge them in as many cases as possible, and that conclusions should always be seen as current approximations are *still* good and required. The problem comes when biases mean we don't test as fully as we should or consider alternatives when we should.

But the scientific method itself isn't gender dependent, nor race dependent.

I just can't imagine a more unrealistic and ivory-tower conception of scientific inquiry. 

This idea that we can just silo off the macho "hard sciences" like physics that deal with the absolute truth of how reality is from those "soft sciences" where we're dealing with human beings being human is just way too convenient for my liking. You're still dealing with historically and culturally embedded agents conducting research in institutional contexts where there's politics, funding, vested interests, reputations and prestige at stake. Women and minorities are at a disadvantage in the world of the sciences in the same way as they are elsewhere in society: straight white men have long been the ones to establish cultural, institutional, and industry consensus, and they have been socialized to identify challenges to these consensus realities as threats to the social order rather than intriguing opportunities for progress.

I'm afraid I don't look at science through the same rose-colored glasses you do. We can teach schoolchildren that "the correct conclusions eventually arise, are tested, and are accepted," but anyone who understands the history and philosophy of science realizes that there are many other factors that influence which questions are asked, who gets to ask them, and what qualifies as a correct conclusion than the disinterested and noble quest for Truth.

I don't see that hard sciences as being 'macho'. They are simply more tested and reliable.

Too often in the 'soft' sciences, the numbers involved in the studies are not nearly enough to give a high degree of reliability to the studies. let's face it, a standard significance level of p<.05 is crazy. For any serious consideration, it should be more like p<.0001 or less.

But my point was the those that study humans are more likely to be harmed by the biases because they are studying humans. That means that the biases are much more likely to be due to ego, societal assumptions, and political positioning. That means that conclusions that are not actually supported are more likely to get adopted and taught as 'science' when they are not actually supported by the scientific method.

And yes, the issues with representation in the sciences is a reflection of a larger societal problem with long historical roots. And that lack of diversity has, indeed, slowed the progress of science because of its exclusion of intelligent and qualified individuals, including the denial of appropriate educational opportunities. The society as a whole is far worse off because of those societal biases.

But do I think that being female gave Barbara McClintock any insights unavailable to men? No. Do I think that being female meant that Rosalind Franklin did science in a fundamentally different way than those who society gave awards? No. Do I think that being female gave Mary Ellen Rudin any special insights into set theory unavailable to men? No. Their intellectual abilities were simply independent of their gender.

Now, the societal biases meant that they did not get the accolades they deserved (although McClintock did get a Nobel Prize and Rudin was widely known as a top mathematician, Franklin was unconscionably passed by). But that is very different than the correctness of their science and thought.

---

I suspect he makes the distinction because he refuse to let go of propositions that no information, upon careful analysis, would support.

So in practical sense, his concept of knowledge can be summarized as made up bullshit attractive to him that, as a result,  must never be let go.

He believes in Revelation, that is, in revealed knowledge.  Problem is that no one can agree on those sorts of things.

And so it simply isn't knowledge.