Right now it seems to be a thing to have an opinion about S.H.'s opinions (*).
I don't really care that much about her opinions, but as a follower of internet fashion I read her latest blog post and I found the last sentence interesting:
"The easiest way to see that the problem exists is that they deny it."
So you can either agree with her and support her argument, or you can deny it, which also supports her argument.
I find it interesting that the rhetorical tricks of the dark ages are now entering the scientific discourse ...
(*) Btw the comments made by wolfgang over there are not mine.
added much later: It seem that Sabine is going to sue her most aggressive critic in court.
4 comments:
I agree with Sabine - I see no rational reason to build a larger collider.
I assume most human activities have no rational reasons behind them.
I'm irrational enough to want a bigger collider even though I tend to suspect that B is right.
However, I do find your critique a bit unfair. What she seems to be referring to in the sentence you quote is not her whole argument, but the fact that particle physicists are denying being biased. In view of the fact that they very obviously *are* biased, denial of being biased is indeed evidence that they are not recognizing their inherent biases.
In fairness to you, I found her penultimate paragraph muddy enough that I'm not really sure what she was saying.
Hmm. So there is another Wolfgang commenting on particle physics?
It is obvious that this should be decided in a global, modern and democratic way by all people interested in this important issue; in other words on facebook and/or with twitter polls. (It cannot be denied that physicists are inherently biased on this issue, but they should be allowed to participate in this debate imho, like everybody else.)
Anybody who disagrees with this sensible proposal only shows how much elitism still exists in our society (and I do not need to explain that elitism and sexism and racism are strongly correlated).
8-)
Post a Comment