University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#2The paper itself is a chuckle fest (as are many Intelligencer submissions) and concludes:
> The goal here has been neither to challenge nor to confirm Darwin’s and other researchers’ observations of greater male variability for any given species or any given trait, but rather to propose an elementary mathematical theory based on biological/evolutionary mechanisms that might serve as a starting point to help explain how one sex of a species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other sex.
ie. Such a thing may or may not be true, but if it were true there is a pachinko machine that can create that effect.
Of course, more generally, if you posit a distribution, there exists a pachinko machine that can recreate it.
What's telling is that this paper appends two runs of empirical data sets:
A.1 Primary Research Studies Supporting the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis
and
A.2 Primary Research Studies Not Supporting the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis
so they're not even backing a horse in any race, just stirring the pot for a giggle .. via 30+ pages with references.
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#3The paper itself is a chuckle fest (as are many Intelligencer submissions) and concludes: > The goal here has been neither to challenge nor to confirm Darwin’s and other researchers’ observations of greater male variability for any given species or any given trait, but rather to propose an elementary mathematical theory based on biological/evolutionary mechanisms that might serve as a starting point to help explain h…
Everything is a chuckle if you replace phrases like "plausible evolutionary mechanism" with "pachinko machine".
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#4Scientists who studied in medieval times how many angels can fit a needle tip must have reincarnated and continued their research in an adjacent field.
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#5The paper itself is a chuckle fest (as are many Intelligencer submissions) and concludes: > The goal here has been neither to challenge nor to confirm Darwin’s and other researchers’ observations of greater male variability for any given species or any given trait, but rather to propose an elementary mathematical theory based on biological/evolutionary mechanisms that might serve as a starting point to help explain h…
Everything is a chuckle if you replace phrases like "plausible evolutionary mechanism" with "pachinko machine".
It's a valid equivalence.
The paper could equally describe an plausible evolutionary mechanism by which the male sex evolves to be tiny in comparison to females who consume them after snu-snu.
While this has zero bearing on the reality of human evolution it has an example in nature in the spider kingdom.
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is a chuckle if you replace phrases like "plausible evolutionary mechanism" with "pachinko machine".
It's a valid equivalence. The paper could equally describe an plausible evolutionary mechanism by which the male sex evolves to be tiny in comparison to females who consume them after snu-snu. While this has zero bearing on the reality of human evolution it has an example in nature in the spider kingdom.
> While this has zero bearing on the reality of human evolution
It does have bearing. It is proof by example that biology and evolution does not rule out such a possibility. For the actual paper in question, it is proof that such an outcome is not (yet) ruled out even in the specific case of humans.
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#7No post body was provided.
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#8Here’s one of the authors of the mentioned article explaining how the situation developed for more context: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p...
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#9Imagine the 'indirect effect' that these kinds of things have on discussions throughout the industry.
Reddit just had a discussion about the video 'Fat' (i.e. 'Bad') by Weird Al Mocking Michael Jackson.
It 'couldn't be made today' first because it wouldn't even be pitched in the first place - too much risk. They'll try another idea.
Maybe it's 'not nice' in 2022 to use the term 'fat' - or, maybe it's not so bad, and we're just too concerned about everything - the point is - the concept won't ever really be 'thought of' because everyone is aware of the 'new rules'. It's a form of systematic oppression. It's all over the place.
I suggest we should probably err on the side of expression as long as people aren't directly doing something obviously hateful.
Especially in non-populist channels like academia.
Fox News will always find 'something' to harp on, let's not worry about what they have to say, unless we're in some kind of emergency i.e. war, insurrection, pandemic.
Let's publish, create, then talk about it.
Re: University Profs' Criticism Led to Retraction of Math Paper on Gender (2018)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid equivalence. The paper could equally describe an plausible evolutionary mechanism by which the male sex evolves to be tiny in comparison to females who consume them after snu-snu. While this has zero bearing on the reality of human evolution it has an example in nature in the spider kingdom.
> While this has zero bearing on the reality of human evolution It does have bearing. It is proof by example that biology and evolution does not rule out such a possibility. For the actual paper in question, it is proof that such an outcome is not (yet) ruled out even in the specific case of humans.
The possibilities are endless (albeit enumerable), sure - that's the chuckle - it's a given from the outset and flows from the axioms of the game.
This paper doesn't take a broad view and show that many things are possible, it takes a narrow view and demonstrates that one specific thing (among many) is possible.
ie. a dull trite result.
The fact that many possiblies can follow from evolution does bring any specific light to bear on the actual extent reality of human evolution as it is today.
The same arguments here that show it is possible for a mechanism of weights to favour more variation in males can equally be used to show that weights exist to favour more variation in females, or, as in the case of spider, that weights could exist to favor a size variation in which females dwarf males.
Fascinating .. but an abstract result that sheds nothing on the current extant actuality.