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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by Kalium »

InitialLastName wrote: post #69
Kalium wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I see absurd claims being passed around, such as that Hedy Lamarr invented wifi. It is, perhaps, possible to go to far in rectifying the injustices of history.

I don't take too much offense at that one; frequency hopping is a hard enough thing to explain to a lay-person, but it is an enabling technology for wifi. It's like saying Albert Einstein invented the atom bomb... wrong, but not an absurd misunderstanding.

I get it as an innocent misunderstanding. Certainly the role of enabling technologies is often underplayed in lay understanding of technological advancements.

I'm a bit more skeptical when it's a deliberate misrepresentation. You can claim with equal credibility that Guglielmo Marconi invented wifi.

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

#72

Post by dash2 »

cainxinth wrote: post #54
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…

Your argument makes no sense to me. Article: “We don’t know much about this woman because she was overshadowed by her famous brother.” You: “How do we know she was a great scientist? We don’t even know much about her, but everyone in science knows of her brother!” Yeah... that’s literally what the article is about.

My point was that the article describes few achievements that would merit that description.

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

#73

Post by dash2 »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #40
dash2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

assuming there is greater difficulty to achieve things as someone with a particular quality than the difficulties others face in achieving similar things leads one to naturally consider that without those difficulties perhaps they would have achieved much more. Harrison Bergeron once removed of his obstacles would surely have conquered the world and been the greatest dancer and thinker of his generation, were it not…

Yeah, I think that's absolutely true and fair. It's possible that Lady R might have been a truly awesome scientist in a different world, and it's a good idea to remember all those "flowers born to blush unseen". And, in any case, maybe Lady R is just a really interesting person! You don't have to be a (drumroll) Great Scientist to be an interesting biography subject. My objection is to overestimating someone's actual achievements in the interests of a political agenda, no matter how well-meaning.

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

#74

Post by zepto »

cainxinth wrote: post #54
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…

Your argument makes no sense to me. Article: “We don’t know much about this woman because she was overshadowed by her famous brother.” You: “How do we know she was a great scientist? We don’t even know much about her, but everyone in science knows of her brother!” Yeah... that’s literally what the article is about.

The argument makes sense if you take this question seriously:

> How do we know she was a great scientist?

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

#75

Post by InitialLastName »

Kalium wrote: post #71
InitialLastName wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't take too much offense at that one; frequency hopping is a hard enough thing to explain to a lay-person, but it is an enabling technology for wifi. It's like saying Albert Einstein invented the atom bomb... wrong, but not an absurd misunderstanding.

I get it as an innocent misunderstanding. Certainly the role of enabling technologies is often underplayed in lay understanding of technological advancements. I'm a bit more skeptical when it's a deliberate misrepresentation. You can claim with equal credibility that Guglielmo Marconi invented wifi.

I guess the moral of the story is that most modern technologies don't lend themselves well to the popular narrative of a solo inventor, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the contributions of people who had the good ideas that made them possible.

None of Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, Claude Shannon or William Shockley really invented the modern computer, but they all helped quite a bit.

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

#76

Post by dash2 »

wayoutthere wrote: post #49
dash2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, nobody said I was a misogynist pig. I was exaggerating! But only in fun. And I really don't think I took offense at anything.

Just a protip, that kind of exaggeration is poorly received on the Internet because there’s no context to base it in. Even offline, it’s taken as a sign of immaturity and usually met with eye rolls. Probably best to remove it from your rhetorical toolkit if being clearly understood is a goal.

To be fair, three people have called me a misogynist, and one suggested my comment should be flagged. Nobody has called me a pig yet, though.

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

#77

Post by Kalium »

InitialLastName wrote: post #75
Kalium wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it as an innocent misunderstanding. Certainly the role of enabling technologies is often underplayed in lay understanding of technological advancements. I'm a bit more skeptical when it's a deliberate misrepresentation. You can claim with equal credibility that Guglielmo Marconi invented wifi.

I guess the moral of the story is that most modern technologies don't lend themselves well to the popular narrative of a solo inventor, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the contributions of people who had the good ideas that made them possible. None of Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, Claude Shannon or William Shockley really invented the modern computer, but they all helped quite a bit.

I think you've put your finger on the most reasonable point to take away. The notion of a sole inventor is rarely congruent with how modern invention works.

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

#78

Post by SuoDuanDao »

js8 wrote: post #65
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complicating the matter there is also a tradition of an invisible college , people who are very active in the intellectual tradition of their time but seek to remain obscure rather than feted for their accomplishments.

Yes, and with the Internet, and instant communication, this concept can actually become much more pronounced. I think we are yet to realize how much we are intelectually influenced by other random people (in the sense unknown to us, people from which we read or see something on the Internet) today compared to just few decades ago.

I know of one very interesting example - I got into my current line of work, which I've been in for the past 7 years, because of one conversation on a message board where I was complaining about the difficulty of finding work and got advice as to a specific place to look. That throwaway comment from a stranger has had an incredibly significant impact on the course my life has taken, something that person will never know.

Given the butterfly effect, it seems reasonably likely that the greatest change I'll make to how the future develops will be a similar throwaway comment in a forum like this one.

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

#79

Post by wayoutthere »

dash2 wrote: post #76
wayoutthere wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a protip, that kind of exaggeration is poorly received on the Internet because there’s no context to base it in. Even offline, it’s taken as a sign of immaturity and usually met with eye rolls. Probably best to remove it from your rhetorical toolkit if being clearly understood is a goal.

To be fair, three people have called me a misogynist, and one suggested my comment should be flagged. Nobody has called me a pig yet, though.

Kinda proves the point though; your meaning got lost in your rhetoric.

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

#80

Post by vagrantJin »

TchoBeer wrote: post #62
vagrantJin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now now. Let's not start that ephemeral idea of progress as being tied to peoples genitalia. Men and women (read People) have contributed enormously to said "progress"

Yeah, historically men more than women have contributed more to society's intellectual progress because institutions literally didn't let women get an education.

Now now. Calm down. Such broad statements diminish womens contributions to society up to this point. I have 2 problems with your statement.

1) Which women are you talking about specifically? Be clear. Over generalizing is a weak argument.

2) have you considered other factors and situations. Wealth, race, social status etc? Or are genitals of particular intrigue to you?

3) This one is weak but I'll add it anyway. War has been a constant, ever-present threat to all communities. Dont you think that it may have had an impact?

Your view in this matter doesn't strike me as well thought out. More like a knee-jerk reaction fueled by some loopy narrative you've read or heard somewhere. Things are rarely black and white.

Post reply on HN