Slate urges people to stop equating science with truth

A few days ago, Google engineer, James Damore, published this manifesto. He was subsequently fired, thus proving his point, and Slate published this article. Yes, it's an archived copy, because I don't want to drive traffic their way, no matter how little it is.

I will be quoting the article and offer my thoughts. Here comes the cancer.

It’s 2017, and people are still debating whether or not women are intellectually
inferior to men, and whether we are entitled to a workplace that isn’t toxic to people
simply based on their gender and sex.

No, he argued that men and women are different with overlapping skills. In his memo, he states that women are actually superior when dealing with people and are more agreeable, hence they tend to work in front-end and UX.
And of course you had to use the current year argument, because nothing is better proof of a position being true or not, than the fact that this is the 2017th in the calendar we use.

At least science is helping us make progress, right? [...] I was thoroughly convinced
that solving quantum gravity would trickle down to improved human relations [...]

Yes, science is helping as it shows what is true and what is not. We shouldn't make decisions on false data. And wtf has quantum physics have to do with social interactions?

It is impossible to consider [evolutionary psychology] without grappling with the flaws
of the institution—and of the deification—of science itself. For example: It was argued
to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it
cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains. [...] It’s 2017,
and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a
man’s intellect above a woman’s.

Science isn't a deity, you crouton, it is a method with which we can accurately test and reach conclusions. At leas until now, it is the best predictor of truth that we, as a species, have. Again, with the current year argument, and the literature doesn't support male intellect, just intellect. It just so happens that, on average, there are more high IQ men then women. This study, for example, shows that the median IQ for men is 103.8 with a deviation of 14.54, while for women it is 101.41 with a deviation of 13.55. This means that women's IQs cluster around the average, while men's are more evenly distributed, meaning there are more stupid men than women, but also more men that are geniuses. It doesn't mean that it is impossible for women to be geniuses, only that it happens less often. It also means that it is less likely for women to be extremely stupid for the same reason.

Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting.
In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and
refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.

Science doesn't encode bias, it is what it is. What people do with the information provided by science is biased. Science doesn't justify data, it just presents and corroborates it. Actions regarding that data is justified by people, not the scientific method.

Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never
talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race

What? Some people are white and some are not. This is not an "invention" of science, but an evolutionary trait that humans developed in order to survive their respective environments.

The standard history of science [...] is that during the Enlightenment, Europe went from
the dark ages to, well, being enlightened by a more progressive mindset characterized by
objective “science.” It is the rare scientific education that includes a simultaneous
conversation about the rise of violent, imperialist globalization during the same time
period. Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were
in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call
technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously
warmed climate.

Europe, and east Asia for that matter, did become more advanced and enlightened and people, in general, had a much better time where scientific progress was made, as opposed to everywhere else across the world. Regarding violence, actually it has been going down over time. About the indigenous knowledge, well, what do you know? People learn from each other, who would've known? Was it not the europeans that introduced advance farming to the americas, was it not them that brought advanced sailing or gunpowder? Or who was that introduced industry and, rail or electricity to the world? And again, technology isn't good or bad, the use of technology can be those things. For example, nuclear research has brought us the atom bomb, a highly destructive technology, but it also brought cheap energy, that made it almost ubiquitous throughout the world.

Much of the science that resulted from this system, conducted primarily by white men, is
what helped teach us that women were the inferior sex. Racial taxonomies conveniently
confirmed that enslaving African people was a perfectly reasonable behavior [...]

Again, women are not inferior, but different. On average, they are inferior when it comes to physical prowess, but are superior on social bonding. Men, in general, prefer working with things and doing the manual labour while being competitive, while women, again in general, prefer working with people and are better at marketing and aesthetics. Enslavement was present everywhere around the world, and it wasn't science that justified it, but the rulers of the lands who had the biggest sticks to kick people in the head with.

The problem is that science was just the shield he needed in the 18th century, and[...]
it remains that way because scientists refuse to integrate contemporary science,
technology, and society studies research into university curricula. 

Actually, most colleges are infested with some form of gender studies. And normal people don't include this nonsense into science because feminist glaciology is not science, just a load of feminist horseshit.

Enough of us have heard a man, sometimes the president of our college, sometimes our
research adviser, express the view that women’s brains “just work differently” and 
“aren’t suited to technical skills” the way men’s are. Nonbinary people don’t exist, and
transgender people are de-normalized in these narratives. Women of color listen to white
women normalize Europe as the birthplace of scientific intelligence while telling us that
our curly hair isn’t professional-looking. Senior men who we would hope could be mentors
turn out to be our sexual harassers, and with some frequency, senior women tell us to
suck it up and lean in, rather than helping us.

Because human brains do work differently across the sexes. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't change it. And trans-people aren't normal. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and among other things, is tied to high suicide rates.
Europe, and China is the birthplace of the scientific method. And who says that curly hair isn't "professional-looking"?
There are laws against rape and sexual harassment, but complimenting a smile or something, or wearing a shirt with women on it is not sexist or harassment. People tell you to stop complaining about innocuous shit like this is because nobody likes a crybaby, especially when there's no reason to cry.

Google bro would argue that we ought to consider the possibility that white women and
racial minorities simply produce lower-quality work, which is why we struggle to be
recognized as competent knowledge producers. It’s time to turn the tables on this debate.
Rather than leaning in and trying endlessly to prove our humanity and value, people like
him should have to prove that our inferiority is the problem.

"Google bro" argues the possibility that women's work is, in general, different, not inferior. Your work, however, can obviously be considered low-quality, which is why you struggle to be recognised as a knowledge producer... because you produce none. Nobody is denying your humanity, you are definitely human. Your value however, yeah... that is questionable.

Eliminate structural biases in education, health care, housing, and salaries that favor
white men and see if we fail. Run the experiment. Be a scientist about it.

You mean all the affirmative action programs that favour minorities and women? We have tried them, and it only spawned more crybabies and lowered the standards for everyone. The experiment has been running long enough. The results are in, and they're not that great.

There, I fixed it for you.

What are your thoughts? Share them along with feedback below, it is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for reading and keep on steemin'!