"One way to do that, they argue, is by increasing diversity in research teams and peer review." I doubt people would argue against it, the question is rather, how do you achieve that, considering we already dont have enough research teams and peer review is getting harder to do (lack of people and incentives to do that)
Oh boy, I envy your media-diet, because from what I've seen there are boatloads of people that absolutely hate anything to do with diversity and equity and inclusion. To combat this hatred we need explanations (like the ones above) that make them understand that diversity/inclusion is not just a good way to help the marginalized, it's a straight up better way to do science.
> the question is rather, how do you achieve that, considering we already dont have enough research teams and peer review is getting harder to do (lack of people and incentives to do that)
Make people understand *why* it's a good idea, to generate public support. Then use that support to introduce taxes on institutions that are generating negative external effects (e.g. oil companies, coal companies...), and introduce subsidies (using those new funds) for institutions that are generating positive external effects (e.g. laboratories, research institutes...).
The irony here is that Feminism more or less is nothing more than postmodernist bullshit. The entire philosophy plays fast and loose with empiricism or out right rejects it when it inconveniences their arguments and the academic component of their ideology (gender studies) lacks any academic rigor worth mentioning.
If you think it's all postmodernist bullshit without any rigor, then surely you'll have no problem actually refuting the feminist arguments in this post?
You forgot to add 6'4, and feminist literature reader btw, but otherwise really good post
I spent the morning volunteering at the orphanage for at-risk puppies (I'm 9'12 and bake my own bread btw)
"One way to do that, they argue, is by increasing diversity in research teams and peer review." I doubt people would argue against it, the question is rather, how do you achieve that, considering we already dont have enough research teams and peer review is getting harder to do (lack of people and incentives to do that)
> I doubt people would argue against it
Oh boy, I envy your media-diet, because from what I've seen there are boatloads of people that absolutely hate anything to do with diversity and equity and inclusion. To combat this hatred we need explanations (like the ones above) that make them understand that diversity/inclusion is not just a good way to help the marginalized, it's a straight up better way to do science.
> the question is rather, how do you achieve that, considering we already dont have enough research teams and peer review is getting harder to do (lack of people and incentives to do that)
Make people understand *why* it's a good idea, to generate public support. Then use that support to introduce taxes on institutions that are generating negative external effects (e.g. oil companies, coal companies...), and introduce subsidies (using those new funds) for institutions that are generating positive external effects (e.g. laboratories, research institutes...).
The irony here is that Feminism more or less is nothing more than postmodernist bullshit. The entire philosophy plays fast and loose with empiricism or out right rejects it when it inconveniences their arguments and the academic component of their ideology (gender studies) lacks any academic rigor worth mentioning.
If you think it's all postmodernist bullshit without any rigor, then surely you'll have no problem actually refuting the feminist arguments in this post?