They denounce sexist talk of a physicist at CERN
They denounce sexist talk of a physicist at CERN
It was during a gender workshop in theoretical high-energy physics between September 26 and 28.In the summary of the workshop, it is indicated that (translation to my position):
The presentation by Alessandro Strumia attracted considerable attention. He registered for the meeting asking to give a talk about the results related to his recent publication regarding bibliometric data in high-energy physics. The organizers accepted his request, understanding that possible biases in the appointment data were relevant to the meeting. There was no expectation that he (a professor, winner of an ERC-European Research Council, and long-time visitor at CERN) would make a non-professional presentation.
The presentation was offensive, both in content and in form. The talk included personal attacks on named individuals, which violates the CERN code of conduct. The talk was unscientific; It was full of errors; It included false data and false news. Many of the statements made, such as that female students have extra time for exams at the University of Oxford and that women's access to STEM studies (in mathematics, engineering, science and technology) are free, can be refuted immediately. The scientific community came together to refute the arguments presented in the talk.
On the site Particles for Justice a statement was published against the talk. There are cited the arguments used by the Italian physicist, among them:
Strumia argues that since most of the papers cited are from men, this shows that men are intrinsically better at physics than women.The statement against these statements was signed by more than 200 professionals.
On October 1, CERN reported that Strumia was suspended from all activity at the institution.
The slides used by Strumia can be downloaded (see below). In the Gizmodo site it is pointed out that among Strumia's conclusions lies that "it is men who suffer the bias in the hands of a (cultural) Marxism". This is effectively reflected in the slides, as we will see below.
In such a presentation, Strumia says that to interpret gender bias data in papers there are two possibilities:
The theory C, conservative, where the gender symmetry does not exist and the Theory M (of Mainstream or main or dominant) where the symmetry is spontaneous, discursive, supposedly due to discrimination.His conclusion is that the data agree with the Conservative Theory. And Theory M becomes a Marxist:
THE QUESTION OF FUND
It is not enough to have a degree to do science. Strumia's arguments are as pseudoscientific as astrology. These are correlations in which the causal relationship is reversed in order to reach invalid conclusions.For example: if the data indicates that there are fewer women in hard sciences, then it concludes that the only possible cause is that women have less intrinsic intellectual capacities, ie genetic or biological. As a hypothesis, it could be tolerated, but it should be tested. Can Strumia do that? No, it can not. Unless you find a gene present in men and not women that explains those results.
On the other hand, it is possible to think that the same consequence is due to other causes, such as cultural causes. It is possible to find a country in which women are prohibited from driving vehicles, by law. Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, however, shows that in a society you do not only do what the positive (written) laws say, but there are other types of norms such as the religious ones, customs and habits that explain why the society does what it does or does not do.
In the same way, although in other countries there was no positive law that prevented women from being driven, in fact, this is what happened. There were social sanctions. There is no law that prohibits men from wearing skirts, but we do not use them. That is a cultural conditioning. These exist and can be verified scientifically.
Similarly, in the education system it is possible to find more women as teachers of mathematics and that does not imply that women are inherently more capable for such a task than men.
Data such as that women are more interested in social sciences and art than hard sciences, based on income in these careers, does not show that women, in themselves, have more skills for one thing than for another (such as try to "prove" the scientist from the University of Pisa with a vignette, part of which is shown at the beginning of this note).
Until a few years ago, there were few women scoring in football, but today there are many more. Similarly, athletes in the United States did not prefer that sport, as in Japan, but today, many more are playing football and their level has improved. The possible conclusion that the people of those countries were less talented intrinsically for that sport, would have been false. If today, still, they are not as good as the Germans (the World Cup says other things), it will be a matter of practice, not inherent skills.EQUITY AND EQUALITARIANISM
Behind the "Theories C" there is a false argument that there is an ideology that tries to impose on women in places that do not correspond to them because they did not show it, that it would be egalitarianism, to give everyone the same regardless of capabilities, and therefore, it is not meritocratic or equitable.
For there to be equity, there must first be equality. As demonstrated in a simple example: to evaluate the fastest runners equally, races are made that have two requirements: everyone must leave the same line at the same time. That is equality, and without that, it is not possible to reward in an equitable way.
In a similar way, so that in a society there is equity, first everyone (they and they, blacks and whites, etc) must have the same initial conditions, that is, "get out of the same line". Then it will reward more "who runs better".But are there the same initial conditions for the different social sectors? It does not seem. Blacks have not had the same rights as whites (both in positive laws and in unwritten social norms) and similarly with other social sectors. Does not Alan Turing's life show a bias against homosexuals? Even some "Marxists" endorsed such discrimination.
Similarly, there is a bias against women in many areas. It is not about giving women something that does not correspond to them, but rather the opposite, of generating the initial conditions without gender difference, since what matters are the skills and talents that people have in a similar way, although we can develop them in different ways That is what you have to evaluate. On the other hand, the prejudices against women have existed and still persist, as this Italian scientist shows.
The Marxian theory (Marx and Engels) does not emphasize gender differences, but the social difference between workers and employers (whether men or women). Many political sectors that are against that Marxist distinction, on the other hand, are in favor of gender equality, as it happens in liberal parties (from the political and the economic).
To postulate that gender equality is cultural Marxism is simply the result of ignorance.
Gender equality, however, is not achieved only by imposing quotas on women in different sectors. That form of "positive discrimination" should only be considered in a transition process. The central issue is to break the prejudices that prevent equal initial conditions based on abilities and not based on gender or other prejudices.
One might wonder, in passing, why women are in favor of this equality and against prejudices towards them, but they do not seem to be against astrology. At least there are no speeches, shared writings, from women - inside and outside the sciences - against that and other pseudo-sciences that also generate prejudices. In fact, astrological speeches are directed especially at women. This is not because women are really more insecure or emotional, but because of a social prejudice. But in that case, women are silent. To think.
PS: It is interesting and depressing to analyze the comments of the public to the published note on this subject in The Telegraph ...
PD2: I apologize for publishing this more than 20 days after it happened, due to personal situations. But I thought it appropriate to also inform and give a personal approach to the matter.
Sources and related links
1st Workshop on High Energy Theory and Gender
https://indico.cern.ch/event/714346/Particles for Justice
https://www.particlesforjustice.org/Updated statement: CERN stands for diversity
https://press.cern/press-releases/2018/09/updated-statement-cern-stands-diversityStrumia chat slides in Google Drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/viewInverse: CERN Suspends "Highly Offensive" Physics Professor Who Gave Talk on Gender
https://www.inverse.com/article/49492-cern-physics-alessandro-strumiaThis Top Lab Suspended To Theoretical Physicist After He Made Sexist Comments At A Gender And Science Meeting
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/cern-sexist-talk-alessandro-strumiaGizmodo: More Than 200 Physicists Denounce Sexist Lecture at CERN
https://gizmodo.com/over-200-physicists-denounce-sexist-lecture-at-cern-1829513584?rev=1538746490304Biblioranking fundamental physics
Alessandro Strumia, Riccardo Torre
arXiv: 1803.10713 [cs.DL]
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10713Alessandro Strumia, The Mansplainer
https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/alessandro_strumia_the_mansplainer-234498The Telegraph: Italian lecturer suspended by CERN for 'physics invented by men' speech
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/01/italian-professors-speech-removed-cern-website-accused-sexism/About the images
CERN and Alessandro Strumia slides.
SOURCE LINK THE BEST ONLINE UFO WEBSITES https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario