Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#21

Post by Cyril_HN »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #15
okamiueru wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…

straw man? No there is a dead giveaway right here: > "There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with." He devalues the content of the article by labeling the author as "feminist academics"? Not just saying "researchers" or "academics" - he needed to point out that it was a woman with a feminist agenda. But the fact that this is the top comment and gets defended (instead of flagged…

I agree that that is an interpretation worth considering if Parent Commenter has provided corroborating evidence. A charitable interpretation would suggest that this man has seen many arguments about the ostensible brilliance of some otherwise unknown or lesser-known person and that such people make for good propaganda (I use the word propaganda without trying to imply that this piece is propaganda, just to be very clear). A charitable interpretation would also admit there is no necessary malice in saying describing someone as a feminist academic. Feminist academics are, approximately, a class of academic and they do have idiosyncrasies, views, and methods unique to them. It is not an insult to say something is from feminist academia and feminist academia itself would like to admit that that is the standpoint from which it is arguing.

There are many women who have failed to get the recognition they deserve. In fact, there are many people who have, full stop. There is also a market for upselling historical figures.

Saying someone or something is underrated and then making a compelling case for it is incredibly difficult, man, woman, art, or whatever.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#22

Post by kofddfjdfdfdff »

sohkamyung wrote: post #12
dash2 wrote: post #9

Arguments like this make me suspicious. Essentially, we've got no way of knowing how much Lady Ranelagh would have achieved if... so that leaves us free to speculate about how she was an unknown genius. There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with. Meanwhile, how many people can name an achievement of Robert Boyle, who actually was the greatest English scientist before Newton? M…

This from the book's description [1] implies that she did much more that that. > Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything from decimalizing the currency to producing Hebrew grammars. She practiced medicine alongside distinguished male physicians, treating some of the most elite patients in London. Her medical recipes, political commentaries, and testimony c…

So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history.

Not saying she wasn't a formidable thinker, but many people were and are. Only a few become famous because their inventions have long lasting effects.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#23

Post by kofddfjdfdfdff »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #10
dash2 wrote: post #9

Arguments like this make me suspicious. Essentially, we've got no way of knowing how much Lady Ranelagh would have achieved if... so that leaves us free to speculate about how she was an unknown genius. There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with. Meanwhile, how many people can name an achievement of Robert Boyle, who actually was the greatest English scientist before Newton? M…

as a man, how insecure does one have to be to take offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it?

Because such books have an agenda behind them, unfortunately.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#24

Post by dash2 »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #15
okamiueru wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…

straw man? No there is a dead giveaway right here: > "There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with." He devalues the content of the article by labeling the author as "feminist academics"? Not just saying "researchers" or "academics" - he needed to point out that it was a woman with a feminist agenda. But the fact that this is the top comment and gets defended (instead of flagged…

You are mistaken that I am devaluing the article by labeling the author as feminist. I'm fine with the author being a feminist. I'm just pointing out that feminists are more likely than other academics to write books like this. That's a statement of the obvious.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#25

Post by qsort »

watwut wrote: post #17
okamiueru wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…

It is not win. It is simply assuming and claiming she is getting unfair credit without bothering to look at the case -- on the basis of her gender. The comment did not asked for tldr, the comment literally made claims about her lack of achievements. Admitting that you did not checked it and being theoretically open to change if you would bothered does not change all that much. Plus, this is just how bias works. In as…

Having bias but being open to change one's mind is a correct application of the Bayes' theorem, isn't it?

(I agree the root comment was a bit... weird, let's put it that way, but the author themselves acknowledged that)

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#26

Post by dash2 »

watwut wrote: post #17
okamiueru wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…

It is not win. It is simply assuming and claiming she is getting unfair credit without bothering to look at the case -- on the basis of her gender. The comment did not asked for tldr, the comment literally made claims about her lack of achievements. Admitting that you did not checked it and being theoretically open to change if you would bothered does not change all that much. Plus, this is just how bias works. In as…

I laid out why I thought this book might be overclaiming for the status of its subject. I said "I might be wrong", and then gave evidence from the fact that the achievements mentioned in the review don't seem huge. This is a "dog didn't bark in the night" argument: if Lady R had amazing achievements, the review would have mentioned them. But again, maybe I'm wrong! Feel free to read the book, or other sources, and rebut me with evidence. I'll happily hold my hands up. That would be a much more effective argument than accusing me of bias.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#27

Post by js8 »

dash2 wrote: post #9

Arguments like this make me suspicious. Essentially, we've got no way of knowing how much Lady Ranelagh would have achieved if... so that leaves us free to speculate about how she was an unknown genius. There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with. Meanwhile, how many people can name an achievement of Robert Boyle, who actually was the greatest English scientist before Newton? M…

I think there is no real way to measure it, but I suspect we would be surprised to see how many smart people is there who just inspire other famous people to do something and are not so much famous themselves.

It really depends on your worldview, whether it is more individualist, or collectivist, if you want to count their accomplishments.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#28

Post by [deleted] »

a_bonobo wrote: post #3
bigmattystyles wrote: post #2

I’ve always wondered the true number of Einsteins, Ramanujans, Lovelaces, etc who were forced into a life of physical exploitation, turned into mechanical machines because of life’s and humanity’s brutality. Even in modern times... (not that forcing anyone, even non-geniuses into a life of manual servitude or exploitation is ever ok)

>I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. Stephen Jay Gould, "Wide hats and narrow minds" New Scientist 8 March 1979, p. 777. Reprinted in The Panda's Thumb, p. 151.

[deleted]

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#29

Post by dash2 »

sohkamyung wrote: post #12
dash2 wrote: post #9

Arguments like this make me suspicious. Essentially, we've got no way of knowing how much Lady Ranelagh would have achieved if... so that leaves us free to speculate about how she was an unknown genius. There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with. Meanwhile, how many people can name an achievement of Robert Boyle, who actually was the greatest English scientist before Newton? M…

This from the book's description [1] implies that she did much more that that. > Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything from decimalizing the currency to producing Hebrew grammars. She practiced medicine alongside distinguished male physicians, treating some of the most elite patients in London. Her medical recipes, political commentaries, and testimony c…

I think this is a much better argument than all the overheated comments about how I'm a misogynist pig. But still. Here's a comparison. This person:

* Discussed refraction with the brilliant philosopher Thomas Hobbes

* Computed the first table of antilogarithms

* Wrote manuscripts on the circulation of the blood - and may have anticipated Harvey

* Also wrote on psychology, and the size of the universe

* Conducted some of the first experimental research on medicine

This is Walter Warner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Warner). Probably way more distinguished than you or I will ever be, but not quite an unknown genius - just the first name I saw on the Wikipedia list of 17th century scientists. So, in terms of actual achievements, is this less than Lady Ranelagh?

To be clear, I have zero problem with people writing books on unknown female thinkers. I'm sure I'd find this an interesting book! What I think is bad is the overclaiming that sometimes goes along with it - giving inflated importance to historical figures based on what they might have done, if only society had been fairer. I think this comes from two reasons: a sense of historical injustice, and a desire to have historical female role models for scientists today. (OK, and maybe a third, the desire to sell one's book.) But however laudable those reasons are, we should not distort history in their service.

Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister

#30

Post by zozbot234 »

kofddfjdfdfdff wrote: post #22
sohkamyung wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This from the book's description [1] implies that she did much more that that. > Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything from decimalizing the currency to producing Hebrew grammars. She practiced medicine alongside distinguished male physicians, treating some of the most elite patients in London. Her medical recipes, political commentaries, and testimony c…

So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history. Not saying she wasn't a formidable thinker, but many people were and are. Only a few become famous because their inventions have long lasting effects.

> So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history.

The weird thing is that she seems to have been popular, yet she isn't mentioned (so far as I can tell) in the main sources of pre-20th c. biography (e.g. the DNB). Uncovering such minor but influential figures that hadn't yet been comprehensively described has always been a main interest of historians and antiquarians, so I think this author's work can be described as a very real accomplishment.

Post reply on HN