What are Laws of Nature?

[Istvan]

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ivory tower or moral sewer.....while you argue over these items I doubt that poly believes that either accurately describes the current state of scientific enterprise or the fundamentals of a scientific approach, as reading that comment you quoted so painfully and obviously indicates. Has this informal polling been instructive, or?

[Istvan]

Ivory tower or moral sewer.....while you argue over these items I doubt that poly believes that either accurately describes the current state of scientific enterprise or the fundamentals of a scientific approach, as reading that comment you quoted so painfully and obviously indicates.  Has this informal polling been instructive, or?

So no matter how many science-fan clichés he writes about how science is so rigorously self-critical and inevitably reaches the correct conclusion, and no matter how many legitimate criticisms about the exclusion and marginalization faced by women and minorities in science that he handwaves away with noble rhetoric about how unbiased and objective science is, according to you I should just assume that he means the exact opposite of the words he's typing and that he has a much more nuanced understanding of the social and cultural context of science than his words describe?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, members speak for themselves - but as for this question - it's already been spoken to. Post#17

Here's a fun q. How would an existentialist go about making the case that their appraisal of a person was objective and consequential as to how we might define that person even in contradiction to that persons own self apprehension and...fwiw, written words? As I mentioned, there are alot of people who would like to accept existentialist premises, like to object to objectivism in many contexts - but might still also like to make objective claims in others. This one is as good as any for a suggestion.

---

@polymath257

Since everything is just so much easier to do directly.  Do you think that science is a god's eye view of anything?

[polymath257]

Well, members speak for themselves - but as for this question - it's already been spoken to.  Post#17

Here's a fun q.  How would an existentialist go about making the case that their appraisal of a person was objective and consequential as to how we might define that person even in contradiction to that persons own self apprehension and...fwiw, written words?  As I mentioned, there are alot of people who would like to accept existentialist premises, like to object to objectivism in many contexts - but might still also like to make objective claims in others.  This one is as good as any for a suggestion.

---

@polymath257

Since everything is just so much easier to do directly.  Do you think that science is a god's eye view of anything?

I don't even know what that would mean in context.

Science is a human endeavor. It is a structured way to get information by proposing and testing ideas via observation.

I don't even see science as a worldview: it is a method of obtaining reliable information.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, members speak for themselves - but as for this question - it's already been spoken to.  Post#17

Here's a fun q.  How would an existentialist go about making the case that their appraisal of a person was objective and consequential as to how we might define that person even in contradiction to that persons own self apprehension and...fwiw, written words?  As I mentioned, there are alot of people who would like to accept existentialist premises, like to object to objectivism in many contexts - but might still also like to make objective claims in others.  This one is as good as any for a suggestion.

---

@polymath257

Since everything is just so much easier to do directly.  Do you think that science is a god's eye view of anything?

I don't even know what that would mean in context.

Science is a human endeavor. It is a structured way to get information by proposing and testing ideas via observation.

I don't even see science as a worldview: it is a method of obtaining reliable information.

Reliable information does not mean the same thing as knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you might be insisting on a gods eye view right there. To anyone with a comfortable view of provisional certitude, it means exactly that and nothing more. All things known are known only to the extent of "best we can tell".

I'm not precognitive, but I have reliable information about the sun - so I can say that I know that tomorrow, right after the roosters start making noise (and in direct response to my morning deuce) - it's going to rise in the east.

[brewer]

FFS, please more this to philosophy!

[polymath257]

I don't even know what that would mean in context.

Science is a human endeavor. It is a structured way to get information by proposing and testing ideas via observation.

I don't even see science as a worldview: it is a method of obtaining reliable information.

Reliable information does not mean the same thing as knowledge.

What do you see as being the difference? Especially when science is able to put that reliable information into a consistent theoretical framework?

[Anomalocaris]

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.