Warring claims

By -
Those objecting to “patriarchy“ often make claims like:
  1. In the past, women were unfairly denied the opportunity to become artists, writers, scientists, etc.
  2. It is a clear sign of discrimination that at present, women make up a small number of the scientists mentioned in history books, the writers in the canon, the artists in museums, etc.
Of course, if point one is true, then the facts cited in point two would be the logical result of that past discrimination, and not really offer any evidence for present discrimination. After all, if women were denied the opportunity to pursue painting, then necessarily we would find very few great female painters. To demand that museums equally showcase male and female painters would be as silly as demanding that symphony orchestras equally feature compositions by European and Native American composers.

But logical consistency is not high on the list of desired features for ideologues’ complaints.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more