Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics

From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Sat Dec 21 1996 - 07:47:34 MST


On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Kathryn Aegis wrote:

> I simply don't have the space on a list posting to provide it! Other

While this might be true, it certainly sounds like side-stepping.

> than to say that there has been a sea change since 1985 in the areas
> of evolutionary psychology, sociology, psychology, gender studies,
> etc. based on the realization that a lot of the prevailing paradigms
> were skewed to the biases of the male researchers. This isn't to

Maybe these "sciences" weren't that scientific, after all. Strong
operator signature is a sign of sloppy experimentation, if not dire fraud.
Good science is operator-neutral, which should be provable in a
double-blind.
 
> completely indict the male researchers--it's an acknowledgment that a
> balanced perspective was missing. A lot of reevaluation is taking place,
> work that was formerly pushed aside is being reexamined, new evidence
> and new theories are emerging.

I haven't noticed that, but then, I have not looked. Does anybody
knowledgeable second Kathryn's observations?
 
> Anyhow, we are transhumanists! Are we not in the business of
> overcoming human limitations? Why cling to these worn, outdated and

While this is certainly desirable, I thought we were describing the
status quo. Afaik, observations do not speak pro nonexistance of gender
differences.

ciao,
'gene
 
> limiting roles? Why retell the same story over and over?
>
> Sin,
>
> Kathryn Aegis



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:54 MST