It appears as if J. R. Molloy <email@example.com> wrote:
|> Instead of testostrone making people interested in science,
|> oestrogene could make people uninterested in science, thus
|> making the males stand out as scientists.
|By the same (silly) token, "oestrogene" could make people non-violent, thus
|making the males stand out as violent. According to this twisted logic,
|testosterone is not implicated in violent behavior nor in scientific acumen.
The only way to know whether something really is the truth or not
is by doing science. But so far, I have seen very little science
being done, or even referred to.
Feel free to refer to any research proving your standpoint.
|> One can thus postulate several possible explanations for the
|> phenomenon of gender imbalance in "doing science".
|With this kind of cockamamie inversion, one can postulate just about anything,
|including a demand for reparations for the involuntary servitude males
|experience due to military conscription.
So why not doing it right, and point at any scientific research, which would
prove the statements, when stating something non-obvious?
Statements without scientific proof are just _opinions_.
Others may well have other, and contradictive, opinions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:08 MDT