Comments on: Letter to the Editor of Science http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/ Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:14:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Feminist Chemists http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-997 Feminist Chemists Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:01:08 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-997 Ash, it is amazing how your attempt to construct a logical counterargument implodes in on itself. Your inept rambling has nothing to do with this post, but we will not delete it because it makes us laugh. Ash, it is amazing how your attempt to construct a logical counterargument implodes in on itself. Your inept rambling has nothing to do with this post, but we will not delete it because it makes us laugh.

]]> By: Ash http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-996 Ash Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:38:59 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-996 The comments by the feminists here = "Epic Fail" If your son scores higher than your daughter in math... It is assumed that the father is at fault and all men should pay, "Get yer pitchforks girls, we havin us an old fashioned witch hunt" It just so happens my wife is very good at math, and as a result of her tutoring, my son has very high scores. A 4th grade boy doing calculus is in my opinion... insanely amazing. But when he's older it wont count, because feminists will view him as self serving male first...right? Or ...it doesn't count because I oppressed my wife into knowing all this on purpose before we met, and got married to her and forced her to teach my son so that I could undermine feminist authority...right? Its hilarious how lolfeminism implodes in on itself, when one woman decides to do the right thing for a member of the male gender. The comments by the feminists here = “Epic Fail” If your son scores higher than your daughter in math… It is assumed that the father is at fault and all men should pay,

“Get yer pitchforks girls, we havin us an old fashioned witch hunt”

It just so happens my wife is very good at math, and as a result of her tutoring, my son has very high scores. A 4th grade boy doing calculus is in my opinion… insanely amazing.

But when he’s older it wont count, because feminists will view him as self serving male first…right?

Or …it doesn’t count because I oppressed my wife into knowing all this on purpose before we met, and got married to her and forced her to teach my son so that I could undermine feminist authority…right?

Its hilarious how lolfeminism implodes in on itself, when one woman decides to do the right thing for a member of the male gender.

]]> By: Eli Carr http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Eli Carr Tue, 12 May 2009 01:22:45 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-64 It appears that the men who decided to conduct this research had an agenda going in. How else would they get such a study funded? I can just imagine their grant proposal. "Boys are better than girls at math, we can prove it." And some slobbering government official dude thought, "yeah, that's awesome, here's some money." These men are so afraid of losing their power. And they are losing it. Little by little, and there is NOTHING they can do about it! It appears that the men who decided to conduct this research had an agenda going in. How else would they get such a study funded? I can just imagine their grant proposal. “Boys are better than girls at math, we can prove it.” And some slobbering government official dude thought, “yeah, that’s awesome, here’s some money.”

These men are so afraid of losing their power. And they are losing it. Little by little, and there is NOTHING they can do about it!

]]> By: feministchemists http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1039 feministchemists Sun, 10 May 2009 22:31:43 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-1039 We didn't say "the test was wrong," we said "the test was irrelevant." The variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references we cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer). <br><br>We can do statistical analyses on all kinds of irrelevant data sets and publish the trends that we see. That is easy to do. The hard part is finding the most relevant data set to analyze. We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” The variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references we cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).

We can do statistical analyses on all kinds of irrelevant data sets and publish the trends that we see. That is easy to do. The hard part is finding the most relevant data set to analyze.

]]> By: nashv http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1038 nashv Sun, 10 May 2009 22:28:50 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-1038 As others have explained before me - "The test is wrong" is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.<br><br>Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted - there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences. As others have explained before me – “The test is wrong” is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.

Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted – there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences.

]]> By: feministchemists http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1040 feministchemists Sun, 10 May 2009 22:27:22 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-1040 Marilyn, I question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm... I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted! <br><br>Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur. Marilyn, I question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm… I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted!

Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur.

]]> By: feministchemists http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1005 feministchemists Sun, 10 May 2009 17:31:43 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-1005 We didn't say "the test was wrong," we said "the test was irrelevant." The variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references we cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer). <br><br>We can do statistical analyses on all kinds of irrelevant data sets and publish the trends that we see. That is easy to do. The hard part is finding the most relevant data set to analyze. We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” The variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references we cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).

We can do statistical analyses on all kinds of irrelevant data sets and publish the trends that we see. That is easy to do. The hard part is finding the most relevant data set to analyze.

]]> By: nashv http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1004 nashv Sun, 10 May 2009 17:28:50 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-1004 As others have explained before me - "The test is wrong" is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.<br><br>Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted - there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences. As others have explained before me – “The test is wrong” is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.

Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted – there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences.

]]> By: feministchemists http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1003 feministchemists Sun, 10 May 2009 17:27:22 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-1003 Marilyn, I question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm... I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted! <br><br>Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur. Marilyn, I question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm… I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted!

Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur.

]]> By: feministchemists http://feministchemists.com/2009/05/09/letter-to-the-editor-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-62 feministchemists Sun, 10 May 2009 15:31:43 +0000 http://feministchemists.com/?p=332#comment-62 We didn't say "the test was wrong," we said "the test was irrelevant." And yes, the variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references I cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer). We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” And yes, the variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references I cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).

]]>