Discussion about this post

User's avatar
javadavis's avatar

OK, two things, just my opinion and in reverse order:1) Your objection to the phrases "in such a fashion" and "regardless of wealth or status" is either tone deaf or deliberate misdirection. Obama was our last president, (and probably capable of writing his own speeches, BTW) so I take these nuances as being barbs aimed at Trump. Trump was busted (during the campaign) for bragging about demeaning women "in such a fashion" and is currently still avoiding consequences of consequence due to his wealth and status. Trump won't notice, but those around him will, like Corker.and 2) "...perhaps awaiting permission from Hillary ..." - is this an attempt at humor? I thought my sense of humor was peculiar, but this is too much.

Expand full comment
Msgr MΩment classic ☑️'s avatar

"Relative Motion"?! I've taught undergraduate physics on and off for thirty years and what you're saying makes no sense. There is no evidence that Einstein published anything in this supposed Relative-Motion-but-not-Relativity before his work on Relativity (http://www.einstein-website.... Furthermore, the mechanics of Relative_Motion was already understood hundreds of years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... BY GALILEO. You strike me as somebody who saw a shiny mirage once and now want to tell me about all the exotic fruit growing along the shores of a magnificent lake.

The reason that Mileva Marić's work has been "forgotten" is that there is no solid evidence for it. It's all based on conjecture, and sometimes, as in the citation I posted above, mistranslation or misinterpretation. Wrap yourself in that book you can't lay your hands on right now instead of rebutting the arguments in that article. It's not a good look for you.

Now, I give a shit about this and I am writing this screed out because (a) I've taught undergrad physics off and on for thirty years, (b) I've published a couple of research papers debunking junk science that has propagated in the public sphere because it resonated with people's confirmation bias, and (c) I strongly believe that fake news should be confronted regardless of who spreads it, even when it's something I myself truly, truly wish were true. Yours is just another tired example, posed by someone based on shaky circumstantial evidence, looking to sell books.

Speaking of gender discussions in undergraduate settings, I was in a reading group with my faculty peers some years ago and one of the books -- by a pre-eminent feminist scholar -- repeated the old canard (originally published in that renowned scientific journal Time Magazine around 1970; sorry I can't find it online) that women's marathon times will one day catch up with men's. A few problems with this conclusion. a) It is based on a simple linear extrapolation of world records vs year, a model according to which we will one day run ZERO-HOUR MARATHONS.b) The date projected for women catching up (mid-1980s, I believe) had already long expired.This was another great example of confirmation bias. The feminist (BTW I'm a feminist, too) writer bought into it without asking sufficiently pointed questions (See bullet (a).) and included it in her book even though it was totally irrelevant to her agenda.

This is the sort of bullshit you will hear about gender in your undergraduate colleges, even in a faculty reading group co-sponsored by women in the sciences, none of whom raised a peep when I pointed out the flaws in this model.

/tl;dr. I have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you wish to make your argument, please rebut my sources and/or provide your own. I don't care about some hypothetical book you lent to your girlfriend in Canada./dick joke

Expand full comment
3399 more comments...

No posts