swansont

I don’t mind when assumptions are clearly labeled as such. It’s presenting them as if they were fact that I have an issue with. “If A then B” vs “A, therefore B”

The question I answered was “Can NdGT be called a scientist in your opinion, given that he's hardly published anything in 30 years?” I provided three papers he has. I didn’t attempt to address whether he’s a “working astrophysicist.” That’s not where the goalposts were. The thing is, my last first-author paper wasn’t much later than that, and have perhaps six of them. I’m on a few dozen papers total. I find this line of criticism kind of insulting. If someone used these criteria to suggest that I wasn’t a practicing physicist before I retired I would have told them to f%&# off into the sun.

Anders Agerbo Andersen has been banned for spamming and soapboxing

The COSMOS collaboration involves >200 scientists. I’ve been on papers with lots of authors (dozens, at a particle collider, so lots of people work on the experiment in various ways) but that doesn’t mean I had a minimal contribution, and being very late can be because of how they list authors after the first author (like, say, alphabetical? Looks that way. T is late in the alphabet) You don’t have to like the guy, but this is just manufacturing reasons to bash him.

! Moderator Note Locked pending moderator discussion

You don’t get to change the parameters of someone else’s question just because it’s inconvenient

! Moderator Note No, it doesn’t Feel free to ask questions to improve your knowledge, but we don’t have a WAG forum

Because they happen to be at distances from the earth that their angular size is approximately the same. They aren’t exactly the same; the orbits are elliptical so the angular size varies. The moon’s orbit has changed over time, so this situation wasn’t always the case. ! Moderator Note Please try to include some science in your posts. Otherwise they will be moved to the trash

“Normal” wasn’t part of this. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?” Appending “normal” to this is a straw man (in case you’re not sure: that’s not something you should be doing)

And rape exists in humans. Human women sometimes kill their husbands. Being punished by law is irrelevant to the point. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?” (and the part about eating their mates is an exaggeration. It happens in one species of black widow https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology/arachnology-and-entomology/spider-myths/myth-black-widows-eat)

To fend off the issue we saw in a recent thread, this does not mean treating women exactly the same as men. The issue here is also about equity, which not really the same as equality. Equal opportunities and equal outcomes, which don’t always happen by treating everyone exactly the same https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

If it’s just preaching, we’ll shut it down. If a pattern emerges that shows there’s an agenda, we’ll deal with it, but that sometimes takes time.

Is this a surprise? Social media is not academia. It seems to me you are leaning heavily on social media as your source here, and citing opinion rather than fact. People on social media have warped definitions for e.g. socialism, too. they want to use a hot-button word to evoke a response. That has more to do with people who like trolling than anything else. So what is it you want to discuss? Trolling on social media, or actual feminism? If it’s the latter, don’t be citing the former.

This is a statistical blip. One must remember that participation in these threads is voluntary.

! Moderator Note Then you do not have material that fulfills the requirements of the speculations section Do not reintroduce this subject

Ghideon posted a screenshot that looks quite straight.

A jump of any distance would follow a parabolic path, not a straight line. And a jump (especially upward) wouldn't be at ~constant speed

What rodent would follow those paths, through the air?

! Moderator Note Are you using wikipedia as a source? You haven’t provided any citations. And social media is definitely not a source. Neither is this. You need to do better

What is it you want to discuss? Gender schema, or transgenderism? There might be some overlap, but AFAICT these are not the same thing.

You posted this in medical science, so you’d better be discussing science.

! Moderator Note Where? Who is making the arguments? This is in medical science - are these medical science arguments? Let’s see what science you’ve heard on the subject.

But you said IQ, which is intelligence, not education. (actual IQ tests, OTOH…) Yes, they were better-educated, but there were relatively few of them, because the masses were doing manual labor. They had opportunity and probably family means or a patron. The average person today is much better educated - “developed” countries send their kids to school rather than the mines or to plow a field - plus they have the benefit of accumulated knowledge. (more than half of US adults >25y.o. have some level of college education https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#General_attainment_of_degrees/diplomas)

You said “The average person as recently as the early 1900s didn't even read or write” so it’s not at all obvious that that’s what you meant, but I appreciate the tap-dancing.

Literacy is a matter of education opportunity rather than intelligence.