₦airaland Forum

coogar:
it is!
99% of all human achievements are by men. where are the women? few minorities mean when you look at any group of intellectuals from science to inventions to finance to politics, men always always outnumber the women & i don't think there's any law restricting women to become what they wanna become.

why this belief when women have had equal opportunities as the men for at least the last 100 years? were there no women in bill gates' class? steve jobs? where are they today? what have they invented?

you are pulling this out of the stratosphere - there's no excuse for any woman not to be what she wishes. the truth is - a woman's mental capacity in general terms cannot cope when the demand is extremely tasking. men are more suited to such roles.

if it's really a divine curse - there's no escaping it. humans cannot & can never overcome the curse God placed on them in eden.

You are a sad case of ignorance.

1. You rely on fallacies such as the most fictitious quantification of human achievement. How were you able to calculate human achievement across centuries and compute 99 percent contribution from men. That is absolutely ridiculous.

2. The Achilles Heel of your generalization that genius resides solely in males, is for me to prove that at least one single female is capable of genius. Just one example destroys your argument.

3. Women form a minority in such a pyramid social structure in our society and in the West. People have the mythical belief that women are inferior humans. It is a strange belief but people do. Hence the scarcity of women at the top. The men at the top are not always the brightest. In aristocratic societies, it was believed the cream was at the top, but that was proven to be false. Same here. There is no such thing as an equal opportunity. We don't live in a total egalitarian society.

4. Since you have refused to answer my question, I'd give you mine: Yes.

coogar:
that is not the point - why was she born with a womb & a pair of brêasts in the first place?

She has a reproductive capability, is that what you mean?

coogar:
if they are in the fewest minority, then it's an exception to the rule. men are still responsible for 99% of all human achievements in the last 30 years. so where exactly are women pulling the trees? who are the female equivalents of steve jobs, bill gates, seun osewa or they didn't have female classmates in school?



if there's a gender bias in the west, it's against the men. equal opportunities for both genders mean more boys willing to take their careers to the very top are being denied admission for the girls. the girls get admitted quite alright & sometimes graduate only to abandon their careers for other less-mentally tasking fields or become a full housewife.



i don't understand your question - rephrase it or choose other words to make it more intelligible. no one has overcome the curse in eden so i dunno what you talking about....

What does the fewest minority even mean?! Isn't it between two sexes, so where does the fewest minority come from?! It is either a woman is capable or not. If Angela Merkel can successfully govern a powerful state, then there can be more women who can do the same. Genius is not the preserve of males.

The truth is, you search endlessly for an excuse to make out a successful woman. There ought to be many more progressive women, but they unfortunately believe the woman is incapable of remarkable achievements. Culture uses religions, anecdotes to explain why women cannot grow. They explain how a snake and a tortoise made women vulnerable and helpless. They teach humility and erect duty on conceit.

My question was very clear: wouldn't it be courageous and worthy to overcome a divine curse?

coogar:
why do you have a womb & 2 brëasts then? what are the purposes of those body features??

Angela Merkel has a womb and 2 breasts, but she did not limit her life purpose and destiny to a womb and 2 breasts.

Timbuktou:
What is so bad in women supprting men being their primary roles? What is the purpose of women going to work and earning money other than an ego trip? Consider the earnings/money as available and applicable to both sexes. Do you think they have the same general value and purpose?

Dignity.

Timbuktou:
What you consider unfair terms are actually fair. The measures could be a little extreme from time to time, but generally, the wife's place is beneath her man.

"Man is born free but found in chains everywhere"

I don't know of any woman who was born to for the purpose of being beneath a man.

CharlesNneji1:
Everything can't be covered in one thread. This is a thread for strategies to use in manipulating a girl's mind. A thread that will address the "failings" of guys who are bad with girls will be created by me soon.

So for this present method to be used, the guy is assumed to be adequately attractive, right?

sinequanon:
That is not in quotes in the article. I don't know whose words they are.

In any case, none of the examples in the article, and none of the 12 examples following the article of paradigm shifts in the natural sciences, are shifts in the fundamental definition of what constitutes a scientific experiment. That is what I said.

Science does have a character, which, although it doesn't define science, is inalienable from science. I don't think that there could be a paradigm shift away from that character without having to call the result something other than "science".

I think the language 'basic assumptions/paradigms' fully makes my point. Whatever constitutes a scientific experiment safely falls under paradigm.

Misogynist2014:
It might actually look as curse and at the same time, order. If you look at how women were treated ages ago, safe for Yorubas , it looked so much as curse. If you read the wise sayings of Confucius, you will know its necessary for order. It is this that causes and breeds mistake among feminists, they should be fighting the first and not both. It is courageous to minimise the effects, you can't eliminate God's curse, not even Australia(home of feminists can without consequences, grave consequences). These silly feminists have allowed atheious to spread mischief.

In other words, you want women keep the curse because in your eerie world, curses are useful.

coogar:
you are only mentioning the few exceptions to the rule - when i write, i speak about what generally obtains. women have been liberated in britain for more than 100 years yet only 9% of all british engineers are females.

so why isn't it 50-50?
did their society condemn their women to the kitchen. even in america, the percentage of the female engineers are less than 20%. it's baffling that more females actually get admitted for this STEM courses than males but majority of them change their career path shortly after graduation.

why is this? it's simple - they cannot cope with what the roles demand. you can preach gender equality till the cows come home but the fact remains roles that are more mentally tasking suit the men more than the women. it's not any attempt to denigrate women - this is just the fact.

i don't see how humans have overcome or conquer any divine curse. women still earn lower than men on the average. women still toil to make ends meet. women still go through pangs of pain and sometimes die while giving birth. so tell me, which divine curse did they overcome?

How many women does it take to make an exception?

The West still has gender biases, hence the emergence of feminists. The gender roles still remain, marriages remain. The idea that women were 'created' to support men remains. While men build careers, women are advised to sit at home for the sake of the family and supplement.

You still are not answering the question.

Misogynist2014:
To overcome this curse, all other curses in the chapter must be overcome. Also, I think I should tell you that man can go against the word of God, but for consequences......

Is it courageous and worthy to overcome the curses?!

coogar:
we aren't discussing social or gender here - we are talking about gender.

how's this question relevant to the discourse. men got cursed in eden too & they have been living with that curse since then. without the curse, i would be nakëd in a virgin now plucking fresh fruits & riding on the back of a wild animal.

Gender is a social construct. Gender is how a society forms a social role for each sex, expects them to play it out. If a society instructs women to play secondary social roles within the society, the women fulfilling those roles would have secondary relevance. Hence in African communities, men tend to be the astrophysicists, the politicians and powerbrokers AND the women end up in the kitchen.

However amongst the women trapped in the confines of the kitchen are gems and geniuses who would have made impacts in the world. Because the few women that have liberated themselves have become Indian female scientists were able to launch a sophisticated space program on Mars, established jurists like Lady Hope of the UK Supreme Court, and the female justices in the US Supreme Court, the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Marie Curie who was responsible for the earliest research on nuclear activity, Hypatia of Alexandria etc.

Hence I asked, if it was courageous and worthy to overcome a divine curse. Which you have not answered.

sinequanon:
So far, just skimmed the Popper article.

In the Paradigm Shift article, the sort of paradigm shifts they are talking about did not affect the definition of what a scientific experiment is.

There are different levels in a system of model construction -- meta-models (maybe you are familiar with UML). In the article, what is shifting is not the fundamental meta-model. For example, long held ideas about simultaneity that were discarded in the Theory of Relativity were not part of the fundamental meta-model of physics. On the other hand, what constitutes a scientific experiment IS part of the fundamental meta-model. That hasn't undergone a paradigm shift.

I doubt if Kuhn was in the same mind as you are in. Kuhn says of the paradigm shift as ' change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science'. His words are clear, he was working on the larger picture of science as a system and the epistemological issues surrounding it. This in turn could affect the purpose of experiments within science.

coogar:
how do you overcome the pains of childbirth? abracadabra?

That's not an answer to my question. My question is 'isn't it courageous and more worthy to overcome a curse?

coogar:
well, if you don't believe in the bible...there are other ways. the average man is stronger than the average woman, he can run faster, think better& if they were to fight to prove superiority, the man would win every time.

All humans are unequal -- true.

Our inequality is owed to our individual qualities not to social or racial qualities.

Callfubu:
FACTS: Men are head of homes, there can't be two captains in a ship.
MY OPINION: I believe women should be treated with love care and respect because of all they go through. For me? I pray to God to give me the strength to love my wife unconditionally regardless. But the problem here is these specific women calling themselves feminist feel threatened and oppressed by the facts. But madams no be by force to marry, if you feel oppressed, don't marry or create your own company where you are boss and you can decide to hire whomever you want. Trying to show men that you want equality because you don't want to be termed "weaker sex". As a man I believe the women are the stronger sex of sorts, because of all they have to go through, they don't have to laud it over the men they just have to show them. Anyways I rest my case despite the many points to be said

But they do have a source of grievance. Marriage as an institution imposes unfair terms on women. Nobody wants to be enslaved or be inferior to other humans. Our sense of justice rejects arguments that a man is more worthy of an individual than a woman.

coogar:
the bible already said the male is the superior gender. God cursed the woman that her husband will rule over her.

Wouldn't it be more courageous and more worthy to overcome such a curse?

This brings my mind to 'paradigm shifts' as postulated by Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Kuhn took a historical review of scientific enquirys over centuries, beginning with Aristotle. He noticed and was surprised how infantile most of Aristotle's findings in physics. Aristotle seem to have synthesized his thoughts on metaphyics and ethics with physics. Hence Kuhn's curiosity on the workings of science was born. And he made a beautiful discovery which furthers the progress of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Karl Popper has his say here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy

sinequanon:
Kay

I said that scientists define science. I didn't say that they have a free hand.

(Just as parliament makes the laws of the land, they still do not have a free hand. They can be corrupt, etc., but the laws they pass are still "validly" the laws of the land. That does not mean that a law to enslave everyone could make its way through parliament.)

I think it is true of any consensus based system that it has a constitution with some fundamental Acts which, if removed, would destroy the system.

I do not think it is possible for scientists to rework or corrupt the fundamental basis of science to arbitrary extent, without destroying the consensual platform and definition under which they operate.

Better. That is why I always ask questions so as not to misunderstand people.

OliviaPope:
The OP is confused.

Nobody said Marriage was bad.
Marriage is sexist.
Sexism involves TWO sexes.
When two people of the same sèx decide to get married, equality wouldn't be an issue

No one is concerned about the consent involved. The institution is the target here.

sinequanon:
I never said such statements.

So, go and provide the posts.

Don't confuse it with scientists retrospectively calling things science.

sinequanon: Both are about control. It is a fundamental principle in science that you only investigate what you can potentially predict, nail down and control. Science also deems anything that cannot potentially be controlled as non-existent. Of what use, scientists ask rhetorically, would such knowledge be?

[quote author= sinequanon]Authorities in science define what science is. Even if the authority becomes corrupt, it still defines what science is. Corruption is implicitly acknowledged in the methodology. So when top scientists defend science from its outcomes, that is the voice of science. Scientists developed science, and it is "validly" theirs to define and speak for.[/quote]

Kay17: What if these bureaucratic scientists turn their focus and search for metaphysical entities, would that still be science?

[quote author= sinequanon]That is not possible. A metaphysical entity is one that scientists have deemed inscrutable by science.[/quote]

Kay17: The ultimate question: who are scientists?

sinequanon: They are a group of people who have established themselves under a mission statement ( currently one of materialism) and have sold it to layfolk as the holy grail of civilization.

sinequanon:
Meaning that you could not back up your last post with quotes of what I actually said.

I don't like your evasion, dishonesty and mode of debate.

To me, it smacks of agenda, rather than genuine inquiry. So why bother?

That's hardwork, except you deny making such statements, I'd be compelled to provide your posts that said so.

Sinequanon

Since we have exhausted that line, what rule and standard do atheists follow which makes them religious? Wouldn't you acknowledge the exceptions to them?

sinequanon:
You are lumping FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS (predictability, reproducibility, repeatability, effect has a cause) with normal assumptions made in modeling a phenomenon (e.g a type of particle expected to have spin or charge).



The FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE are FIXED. Conflating them with ordinary assumptions in modeling doesn't alter the fact. It just obscures it.



Matter isn't what science says it is, right now. Scientists admit this. They have a working hypothesis, but incorrect model of matter which they hope to improve.

And, no, science doesn't and cannot say it has found something supernatural. It would be a contradiction in terms.

It is then your opinion that fundamental assumptions of science are invariably fixed, not mine. Earlier in previous threads, you have admitted that the practitioners of science can if they see it fit, to develop and alter science in whatever manner they wish. I disagreed with you in that respect, yet right now, you are taking a different position from the one you took previously.


Do you think Matter which is which currently falsely/inadequately pictured by science presently is supernatural, right?

sinequanon:
That is not the point.

The FATAL FLAW in your argument is not that the scenario is ridiculous. It is because it is a contradiction in TERMS. SCIENCE, [b]BY FUNDAMENTAL CONSTRUCTION, can never IDENTIFY something supernatural. So it can't get to the point where it needs to change its fundamental construction. IT IS KNOWN AS A CATCH 22.[/b]

Let me tell you how I would have conducted what I think YOUR "what if" is.

First, I would have admitted HONESTLY that your initial "what if" is fatally flawed as it is a contradiction in terms.

Then I would have given the following thought experiment:

WHAT IF somebody found a [non repeatable, non reproductible etc] FAIRY in their garden. Scientists came, photographed it to prove that it looked like a fairy, recorded it speaking like a human and using its wand to make things appear and disappear. WOULD SCIENCE DECLARE THE FAIRY SUPERNATURAL?

You see the difference?

This is not a FATALLY FLAWED scenario in science, it is only deemed to be EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE.

And my answer to this WHAT IF is "NO science would not deem the fairy to be supernatural". It would simply be an amazing new discovery, and science would attempt to find "predictable, repeatable, reproducible cause and effects to explain the fairy's behaviours". Those ASSUMPTIONS of science would remain.

Nice example you have given here.

By your definition of supernatural, the fairy would not be supernatural if science shifts some of its assumptions to suit the circumstance, because the fairy comes under the lens of science. You said everything outside the ambit of science is supernatural without considering shifting assumptions.

Again your untenable definitions bring us to these conclusions. Except you want to argue it is impossible for science or anyone to shift assumptions.

I hope you wouldn't mind this final question from me:

What if in the Matter in an ultimate reality is not what science says it is, would it be supernatural too?!

sinequanon:
What is bogging the debate down is your persistent attempt to ignore the CRITICAL glitch in your question.

Your WHAT IF makes no sense because, by definition of science, it can NEVER happen.

You would have been much better off admitting the glitch and cooperating to find a way to make whatever point you are trying to make. I'd cooperate with that, but I won't cooperate with spin and glossing over critical and fatal flaws just to entertain your conclusion. I think you should adopt a more honest mode of debate.

That's why it is a WHAT IF scenario. If the power of our imagination can allow it, what then is the conclusion. Of course it is ridiculous for matter which is the basis for materialism to become supernatural. Nonetheless I will open a full fledged thread on science and etc.

sinequanon:
The dispute is not out of the way. You can't simply gloss over the glitch in your argument. I am ok with a WHAT IF scenario, but I am not going to entertain your fallacious premise. It would be pointless, as it would lead to a suspect answer.

I think that there is a way to construct the argument that I think you are trying to express, but you are focusing instead on a lost argument, imo.

All we can do is agree to disagree.

I was only trying to see how far the supernatural goes. But the main question I was trying to put forward is bugged down by your persistent objections. "If science finds matter to be anti - repeatable, reproducible, etc; would it be supernatural" That question you didn't answer, rather you went down the road of scientific interpretations and its nuances. Which can take the effort of a hundred thread pages.

I strongly doubt if these methods would work, because the OP does not consider nor work on the failing of the suitors.

sinequanon:
You are confusing the property used to identify the object with some other property which may be suspected to be "misbehaving".

In science, if the property used to identify the object is not predictable, reproducible etc. then the thing [b]is deemed not proven to exist[b]. (read carefully, it doesn't say proven not to exist, so don't try wasting time going down that blind alley

Before you can start examining the behaviour of the object, you have to identify it by a predictable, reproducible, repeatable measurement.

THEN you can talk about a model for the behaviour of the object. That model can be adequate or inadequate. Having an [size=14pt]INADEQUATE MODEL[/size] does not mean that ANY of the fundamental ASSUMPTIONS of predictability, reproducibility, repeatability and cause and effect [size=14pt]IN SCIENCE[/size] are deemed to have been breached. It only means that you do not have an adequate scientific model for the identified object.

Not necessarily. Especially when the interpretation of the raw data becomes untenable and renders the assumptions themselves untenable.

But provided this dispute is out of the way, would matter suddenly become supernatural? What about subjective perception, are products of subjective perception such as art and music supernatural?

CharlesNneji1:
That's is why I am here; to change that.

But your methods are not points of attraction.

sinequanon:
You haven't answered the question. I didn't say the assumptions dictate how the phenomenon behaves.

So it is detected and identified with the current assumptions, which means it has some attributes which are predictable, reproducible, repeatable etc.

Do you agree with this?

No, it is detected but the assumptions become patently inadequate to properly explain the phenomena. So it is not clearly predictable, reproducible etc or not at all.

sinequanon:
So it is detected and identified with the current assumptions, which means it has some attributes which are predictable, reproducible, repeatable etc.

So how can it contradict all the basic assumptions of science?

The assumptions only suggest the expectations from the phenomena. It does not dictate how the phenomena behaves.