Re: PSEUDO-SCIENCE ? (rambling but not long)

[Herbert H Gottlieb <herbgottlieb@JUNO.COM>]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:09:28 -0600 brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>
writes:
> At 09:49 2/29/00 -0500, Barlow Newbolt wrote:
> > ... These statistical arguments can be very useful if
> > they are developed in an even-handed manner and intrepreted without
> > bias.
> > Barlow Newbolt
>
> This certainly hits a button with me.
>   Here's a statistical pseudo definition of 'science' for example.
>   "A learned field whose most senior positions are occupied in more
> than 94% of paid posts by men."
>
> In contrast here's a definition of 'physics'.
>   "A learned field whose most senior positions are occupied in more
> than 96% of paid posts by men."
>
> It follows that the biological sciences are somewhat deficient in
> this respect.

Therefore it follows that Biology is really not a science.

Herb Gottlieb from New York City
(Where Biology is mostly chemistry applied to living organisms)