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

31–40 of 81 posts

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

#31

Post by pjc50 »

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)

  Full many a gem of purest ray serene  
  The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:  
  Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,  
  And waste its sweetness on the desert air.  
 
  Some village Hampden that with dauntless breast  
  The little tyrant of his fields withstood,  
  Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,  
  Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
"Elegy written in a Country Churchyard", Thomas Gray https://www.bartleby.com/101/453.html

(Ironically time itself has pushed Hampden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hampden out of the list of names that one may reasonably expect English people to recognise, while Milton and Cromwell still remain)

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

#32

Post by watwut »

dash2 wrote: post #29
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…

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…

Literally no one said you are misogynist pig. One called it "taking offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it". I said "bias" in response to someone who called your comment win.

You grossly exaggerate reactions and what people said.

And you are in fact taking offense on her having freaking article about her. That is it, the article exists is the issue here.

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

#33

Post by heresie-dabord »

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…

> The foundation of the Royal Society of London in 1660 [...] The society did not admit female fellows until 1945.

Withholding education from women for centuries was a profoundly stupid social and religious convention that harmed the progress of civilisation.

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

#34

Post by watwut »

qsort wrote: post #25
watwut wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I mean ... who cares. Having bias, then calling it as win or acting like no one is allowed to point out it is bias is not correct application of the Bayes' theorem.

I did not flagged the comment nor downvoted it. I responded to claim that it was win. Which responded to claim that the comment took offense.

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

#35

Post by eternalban »

watwut wrote: post #32
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…

Literally no one said you are misogynist pig. One called it "taking offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it". I said "bias" in response to someone who called your comment win. You grossly exaggerate reactions and what people said. And you are in fact taking offense on her having freaking article about her. That is it, the article…

Not just an article, an assertion of an "incomparable intellectual". That means an intellectual "without equal". It is fair to question such hyperbole, given that the editors of Nature are surely well acquainted with the English language.

But speaking of cracks in history, note how all these notables are aristocrats. Let's ponder all the "incomparable intellectuals" who were not to manor born, male or female.

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

#36

Post by telesilla »

DromedaryCase wrote: post #18
telesilla wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly is the purpose of my branch of feminism! To be liberated from social systems of oppression of all kinds. It's refreshing to see a genial discussion here on HN, challenges aside.

Except oppression isn't necessarily an end and allowing certain groups to define oppression or deriving it from immutable historical fact simply creates another privileged class and gives one a stick to beat oppressors who may not even intentionally participate in so called "oppressive acts" with. I argue fighting oppression is only useful insofar as it presents a utilitarian good for society and that certain levels…

We don't get robots?

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

#37

Post by dash2 »

watwut wrote: post #32
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…

Literally no one said you are misogynist pig. One called it "taking offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it". I said "bias" in response to someone who called your comment win. You grossly exaggerate reactions and what people said. And you are in fact taking offense on her having freaking article about her. That is it, the article…

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.

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

#38

Post by ceilingcorner »

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…

> Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything

By this logic, Ja Rule is the smartest man alive.

https://youtu.be/XYfKzzyWQjM

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

#39

Post by DromedaryCase »

telesilla wrote: post #36
DromedaryCase wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except oppression isn't necessarily an end and allowing certain groups to define oppression or deriving it from immutable historical fact simply creates another privileged class and gives one a stick to beat oppressors who may not even intentionally participate in so called "oppressive acts" with. I argue fighting oppression is only useful insofar as it presents a utilitarian good for society and that certain levels…

We don't get robots?

Eventually, but currently 7.50 an hour is much cheaper than a state of the art burger flipping machine. Once that changes, I assume the unemployment rate will rise and legislation against inequality will be needed.

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

#40

Post by bryanrasmussen »

dash2 wrote: post #29
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…

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 for Diana Moon Glampers and her ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun.

If this lady's achievements were on a par with Walter Warner's, then we should discuss how much more difficult was it for her to do these things as a woman. It might not have been as difficult as we assume, as we compare the misogyny of her era with those of eras that we know better. I would think poverty was more of a hindrance than gender in her time, but I do also suppose gender was some sort of hindrance.

on edit: changed thinking to thinker, changed difficult to difficulty

Post reply on HN