What are Laws of Nature?

[arewethereyet]

Are you saying that because there are fewer women physicists, that physics has gender-biased errors?

Well, do you think that making physics a boys' club is a recipe for diversity of opinion? Or is it bound to create an environment of groupthink and dick swinging?

A friend of the family is a biologist whose theory about tadpoles being able to hatch in response to environmental pressures was initially ridiculed by the men in the field. Her determination in setting up elaborate experiments and gathering evidence finally vindicated her, but how much research hasn't been performed because of the condescension of the male establishment in various disciplines? 

Different people, Prof. Warkentin likes to say, ask different questions.

Escape hatching in red-eyed tree frogs

Moderator Notice
Your post was caught by the automated forum bot and labeled as spam.  Posting again and again doesn't fix that.  Also, we have a rule about posting links when you are under 30 days/30 posts but I will let this one stay as it is on topic.

[The Architect Of Fate]

As I said, it's wrong to make scientific inquiry synonymous with "reality." We're talking about scientific fields, in which women still face bias and exclusion on many levels. I have no reason to believe that this won't distort the reliability of the results, and every reason to believe that your belief in the "self-correcting" nature of scientific endeavor is a bit optimistic.

Are you saying that because there are fewer women physicists, that physics has gender-biased errors that can never self-correct (I guess because men can't correct them)?

Not sure about Physics but Medicine, Psychology, and Biology sure have suffered from gender bias

[Jehanne]

Are you saying that because there are fewer women physicists, that physics has gender-biased errors that can never self-correct (I guess because men can't correct them)?

Not sure about Physics but Medicine, Psychology, and Biology sure have suffered from gender bias

Those in the know correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that researchers always have the option of publishing anonymously, at least in the referee phase.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea is, as it's been put - different people ask different questions (different people have different interests, too, fwiw). To be fair, it's not so much that the methodology is gender biased - that "science is gender biased" - but that science, being a product of people and societies possessing biases and biases influencing circumstance...that there are fewer female, or minority, or poor questioners - in the west, for example.

That's the reason that so much basic research is still on the table in food production. The extension system had a heavy bias toward capital intensive production. As a product of that, we know a hell of alot about how to run a quarter million dollar farm for minimum wage - but far less of an idea how to run a 25k farm for a living wage...and as a product of that, the rural poor will remain the rural poor indefinitely. There's some lit on how to properly exploit a captive labor force in labor intensive export models, sure...but you can see how that gives us the same outcome. Beyond that..(when they aren't the same)....it's just a collection of ad hoc traditional methods.

Feeds back into itself, too. Making it so that there's more opportunity to do practical research and field demos on and for that wealthier producing demographic.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not sure about Physics but Medicine, Psychology, and Biology sure have suffered from gender bias

Those in the know correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that researchers always have the option of publishing anonymously, at least in the referee phase.

They often do but that sort only points out the problem. After all, why would you need to do that if there wasn't a bias? Plus I wasn't just talking about publication. The research itself in these fields have been highly male-centric

For instance medical trials 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...cal-trials

https://theconversation.com/gender-bias-...isk-156495

[Anomalocaris]

Those in the know correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that researchers always have the option of publishing anonymously, at least in the referee phase.

They often do but that sort only points out the problem. After all, why would you need to do that if there wasn't a bias? Plus I wasn't just talking about publication. The research itself in these fields have been highly male-centric

For instance medical trials 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...cal-trials

https://theconversation.com/gender-bias-...isk-156495

the key is, of course, highly male centric research produces a body of research results that is not as widely applicable as possible,  but in areas where they are applicable, they remain just as valid. 

more importantly, in areas neglected by male centered research,  faith based alternatives does not budge from its total bullshit status as a result.   

Finally the nature of scientific research is any biased susceptible to being discovered, its effects quantified and gaps made up in ways no “alternative”  to truth finding deigns to do or have even the most infinitesimal capability to do.

[The Architect Of Fate]

the key is, of course, highly make centric research produces a body of research results that is not as widely applicable as possible,  but in areas where they are applicable, they remain just as valid, 

even more importantly, in areas neglected by male-centered research, faith-based alternatives does not budge from its total bullshit status even if biased research did not deign to actually come to find a better one.

I don't think you got my point. But won't push the matter

[Jehanne]

They often do but that sort only points out the problem. After all, why would you need to do that if there wasn't a bias? Plus I wasn't just talking about publication. The research itself in these fields have been highly male-centric

For instance medical trials 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...cal-trials

https://theconversation.com/gender-bias-...isk-156495

the key is, of course, highly make centric research produces a body of research results that is not as widely applicable as possible,  but in areas where they are applicable, they remain just as valid, 

even more importantly, in areas neglected by male centered research,  faith based alternatives does not budge from its total bullshit status even if biased research did not deign to actually come to find a better one.

Steve Jobs had faith in alternative medicine, for about 9 months, and, then, reality began to set in.

[Disagreeable]

I would say that they are observable fundamental realities with regards to the way that the universe behaves. The laws are in no way separate from the stuff that abides by them.

[polymath257]

Those in the know correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that researchers always have the option of publishing anonymously, at least in the referee phase.

They often do but that sort only points out the problem. After all, why would you need to do that if there wasn't a bias? Plus I wasn't just talking about publication. The research itself in these fields have been highly male-centric

For instance medical trials 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...cal-trials

https://theconversation.com/gender-bias-...isk-156495

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.