Comments for She Thought http://shethought.com women.thinking.critically Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:50:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Wikipedia and Skeptic Women by Stacy Kennedy http://shethought.com/2012/01/30/wikipedia-and-skeptic-women/comment-page-1/#comment-16243 Stacy Kennedy Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:50:08 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1120#comment-16243 Thanks, Susan! Will drop you a PM via Facebook. Thanks, Susan! Will drop you a PM via Facebook.

]]> Comment on Science is Real! by kitty http://shethought.com/2012/01/27/science-is-real/comment-page-1/#comment-16109 kitty Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:14:43 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1097#comment-16109 good article! good article!

]]> Comment on Wikipedia and Skeptic Women by Susan Gerbic http://shethought.com/2012/01/30/wikipedia-and-skeptic-women/comment-page-1/#comment-16095 Susan Gerbic Thu, 02 Feb 2012 03:52:12 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1120#comment-16095 @Stacy Kennedy Of course we are interested. She indeed has an awful page, created in July 2010 by someone "named" colfer2. An example of a well-meaning person who published the page before it was ready, then forgot about it. Very sad. I am willing to teach you how to work on it Stacy if you would like. The Ingalls page gets about 200+ hits a month. Looking over the "talk" page it looks like it is a very low priority for someone to notice and improve it. @Stacy Kennedy
Of course we are interested. She indeed has an awful page, created in July 2010 by someone “named” colfer2. An example of a well-meaning person who published the page before it was ready, then forgot about it. Very sad. I am willing to teach you how to work on it Stacy if you would like. The Ingalls page gets about 200+ hits a month. Looking over the “talk” page it looks like it is a very low priority for someone to notice and improve it.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia and Skeptic Women by Stacy Kennedy http://shethought.com/2012/01/30/wikipedia-and-skeptic-women/comment-page-1/#comment-16092 Stacy Kennedy Thu, 02 Feb 2012 03:32:44 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1120#comment-16092 Thank you, Susan for pointing this out, and for the work you do to give skeptics their place in the Wikiverse! Of course, Wikipedia is a work in progress. One of my favorite writers has an article that is just a stub--and she's (of course it would be a she, wouldn't it?)been critically acclaimed for over 40 years. (Rachel Ingalls, if anyone's interested.) Thank you, Susan for pointing this out, and for the work you do to give skeptics their place in the Wikiverse!

Of course, Wikipedia is a work in progress. One of my favorite writers has an article that is just a stub–and she’s (of course it would be a she, wouldn’t it?)been critically acclaimed for over 40 years.

(Rachel Ingalls, if anyone’s interested.)

]]> Comment on Reactions to a Poll on Girls and Fashion Photos by Carletta Wishon http://shethought.com/2010/08/16/reactions-to-a-poll-on-girls-and-fashion-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-16019 Carletta Wishon Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:30:56 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=282#comment-16019 I really like your writing style, excellent info , appreciate it for putting up : D. I really like your writing style, excellent info , appreciate it for putting up : D.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia and Skeptic Women by Wendy Hughes http://shethought.com/2012/01/30/wikipedia-and-skeptic-women/comment-page-1/#comment-15973 Wendy Hughes Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:28:45 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1120#comment-15973 Excellent analysis, Susan, as was your presentation at TAM9. I'm looking forward to the Wiki workshop next month at CFI Los Angeles. I agree with Simon, above, that outside the skepticism community, thinkers that we consider important are virtually anonymous. Someone pointed out to me when we were driving along Hollywood Boulevard that probably nobody on that sidewalk knew who The Amazing Randi is, let alone the other names in your article. We Have Your Wikiback is my favorite part of the project! Excellent analysis, Susan, as was your presentation at TAM9. I’m looking forward to the Wiki workshop next month at CFI Los Angeles. I agree with Simon, above, that outside the skepticism community, thinkers that we consider important are virtually anonymous. Someone pointed out to me when we were driving along Hollywood Boulevard that probably nobody on that sidewalk knew who The Amazing Randi is, let alone the other names in your article. We Have Your Wikiback is my favorite part of the project!

]]> Comment on Wikipedia and Skeptic Women by Simon Menanteau-Ledouble http://shethought.com/2012/01/30/wikipedia-and-skeptic-women/comment-page-1/#comment-15972 Simon Menanteau-Ledouble Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:02:42 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1120#comment-15972 Thanks for this post. It actually made me think quite a bit. I think part of the problem is a more general "visibility of the sceptical and secular movements" neither are very well publicised in the public at large. Thanks for this post. It actually made me think quite a bit.

I think part of the problem is a more general “visibility of the sceptical and secular movements” neither are very well publicised in the public at large.

]]> Comment on Elitist science by Doug http://shethought.com/2012/01/15/elitist-science/comment-page-1/#comment-15569 Doug Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:27:16 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1090#comment-15569 I think to some extent it's an accident of history. Two of the most prominent scientists of the early twentieth century were Einstein ... and Freud. Einstein's theories were more than vindicated, and his work formed the basis of much of the "hard" science that followed for decades. Freud's attempts to turn psychology int a "hard" science turned out to be little more than flim flam, he was a legend in his own mind, but when it came right down to it he set psychology back by decades. Interesting topic and discussion, I've wondered about it myself for years. ---Doug I think to some extent it’s an accident of history. Two of the most prominent scientists of the early twentieth century were Einstein … and Freud. Einstein’s theories were more than vindicated, and his work formed the basis of much of the “hard” science that followed for decades. Freud’s attempts to turn psychology int a “hard” science turned out to be little more than flim flam, he was a legend in his own mind, but when it came right down to it he set psychology back by decades. Interesting topic and discussion, I’ve wondered about it myself for years. —Doug

]]> Comment on Elitist science by Sophie Hirschfeld http://shethought.com/2012/01/15/elitist-science/comment-page-1/#comment-15566 Sophie Hirschfeld Mon, 16 Jan 2012 01:01:50 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1090#comment-15566 If it is about precision, then we still have a terminology problem. In anthropology, there are some things that can be extremely precise, bone measurements in a specific specimen and studies on mitochondrial DNA in order to understand demographic information. In other studies, such as behavioral observations within communities, the studies are not going to be as precise. The imprecision, though, of the latter should have no bearing on the former, so categorizing the entire field one way, just because the latter falls into the same field still isn't a very rational thing to do. I wrote this post to specifically address the superiority complex some people have. I've seen it several times and it bothers me, especially since it seems to be a distinction that has no regard for what's actually happening within each field of science. If it is about precision, then we still have a terminology problem. In anthropology, there are some things that can be extremely precise, bone measurements in a specific specimen and studies on mitochondrial DNA in order to understand demographic information. In other studies, such as behavioral observations within communities, the studies are not going to be as precise. The imprecision, though, of the latter should have no bearing on the former, so categorizing the entire field one way, just because the latter falls into the same field still isn’t a very rational thing to do.

I wrote this post to specifically address the superiority complex some people have. I’ve seen it several times and it bothers me, especially since it seems to be a distinction that has no regard for what’s actually happening within each field of science.

]]> Comment on Elitist science by Rick http://shethought.com/2012/01/15/elitist-science/comment-page-1/#comment-15565 Rick Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:59:03 +0000 http://shethought.com/?p=1090#comment-15565 Sadly, I think the main motive for those distinguishing hard sciences from soft sciences comes from the fixed amount of money for research and the fact that many times different sciences are put into competition for the same research dollar. So when it comes down to "selling" your brand of science to the funding entity you use a strategy that makes your science more important than anothers science and that argument is more powerful if you can show where it has been published and promoted elsewhere than in your sales pitch. Thus these arguments get spread to areas where they shouldn't and end up stirring up trouble where no trouble was to begin with. Sadly, I think the main motive for those distinguishing hard sciences from soft sciences comes from the fixed amount of money for research and the fact that many times different sciences are put into competition for the same research dollar. So when it comes down to “selling” your brand of science to the funding entity you use a strategy that makes your science more important than anothers science and that argument is more powerful if you can show where it has been published and promoted elsewhere than in your sales pitch. Thus these arguments get spread to areas where they shouldn’t and end up stirring up trouble where no trouble was to begin with.

]]>