|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Monday, June 19, 2006
Coulter on Biology
PZ Myers is having a blast tearing apart Coulter's book. But today's post is absolutely hysterical.
Apparently, the problem with Evolution, according to the creepy lady, is that it is the invention of a cult of biologists, who aren't real scientists because they're mostly women. They're almost always biologists—the "science" with the greatest preponderance of women. The distaff MIT "scientist" who fled the room in response to Larry Summers's remarks was, of course, a biologist. While I'm sure there have been groundbreaking discoveries about the internal digestive system of the earthworm, biologists are barely even scientists anymore. They're classifiers, list-makers, like librarians with their Dewey decimal system. Except librarians don't claim the Dewey decimal system holds the Rosetta Stone to the universe. There were once great biologists, but the morally vacuous ones began to promote their own at the universities. It was sort of intelligently designed devolution. Like Marxists gradually dominating the comp lit department, biologists will only be given tenure today if they foreswear any doubts about the evolution pseudoscience. Consequently, "biologist" almost always means "evolutionary biologist," which is something like an "ESP biologist." So what do you think of that my biologist friends? I'm actually kind of pissed that biology isn't that easy. If I could just publish things I observe without figuring out why they happen I would have so many papers. She seems to be operating on the idea that biologists are all 19th century naturalists wandering around with notebooks and pith helmets. What a freak |
3 Comments:
Eventually, she's going to get some nasty disease. One has to wonder if she'll demand a male doctor without a background in biology.
1:36 PM, June 19, 2006
You got to admit that view of biology as just observational is hysterical. It reminds me of portrayals of doctors/naturalists in victorian novels.
I never get to observe stuff, and if your paper is criticized as "observational" it has about 0.00001% chance of getting published anywhere interesting.
12:21 AM, June 20, 2006
Not to mention, no self respecting librarion in the past 20 years uses the dewey decimal system. This woman is so far removed from any apparent knowledge about the subjects she writes about, it would be funny if so many idiots weren't persuaded by her lame arguments.
10:03 PM, June 21, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home