Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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

At 19:21 2/29/00 -0500, you wrote:
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)


Ah yes - Chemistry and statistics. Looks like Chemistry faculty
can't hit that 'Science' pseudo-definition either?


Total # tenure or tenure-track chemistry faculty versus
# Women on tenure or tenure-track chemistry faculty 1996-1997


University of Chicago 24/1 4.2
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 47/2 4.3
Stanford University 21/1 4.8
Harvard University 20/1 5
University of Wisconsin Madison 39/2 5.1
Columbia University 19/1 5.3
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 31/2 6.5
Cornell University 30/2 6.7
University of California Berkeley 53/5 9.4%
California Institute of Technology 25/3 12
University of California Los Angeles 37/6 16.2

Totals: 346/26 = 7.5%


after ScienceNews: Mairin B. Brennan <edit.cen@acs.org>
from Chem. & Eng. News 20 Jul 98








brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK