"And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back very important science."

Um no it's not, you haven't proved that, you've just stated what some unnamed "Feminist" might or might not believe.

Most feminists I've seen don't argue that men and women are the same, but that women should be treated more equally in areas of freedom of control of their own bodies. How much they get paid for doing the same amount of work as a man. Or, shockingly, how rapes should be dealt with such as not ignoring them.

"As far as I'm concerned, this is a head shot against the modern politics of science and the feminist control of academia."

Well then it must not take very much to convince you of anything if you want to believe it.

Maybe they've been busy researching OTHER things, medical science has advanced a crazy amount in our lifetimes, in just the past 10 years it's leaped forward. There's many avenues that we can study, only so much funding that can be made available for those studies. It's not shocking in that environment of a constantly growing field that some areas would be neglected. It's not necessarily because of Feminism and to claim that without a lot of evidence is just ignorant.

I would like to introduce you to the Streetlight Effect. Science has to jump forward before we can even begin to ask the right questions to get the answers we really seek. It's even more restricted when you think of what funding you have available to spend money on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

60 Minutes here has created a topic of discussion they have not made a compelling argument that can be taken seriously. Which makes sense, this is a television show and it requires concision and isn't going to spend the full time on this subject. I think it does a disservice though to take this blurb and not add to it, instead cite it as a source of proof and not add your own evidence to further the argument. This is limp ammo for ignorant people to use, this is a conversation starter, not a "head shot" that you want it to be.

I mean it should've been fucking obvious when they use feminist speeches clips from the 60s to try to make their point that Feminism has held back research.

Ok. Next question. If we pointed the beam at the moon, could we write our name on the surface?

This is important science dammit!

Lol, if you're disappointed I'll contribute $20 towards having your head examined by professionals.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^NetRunner:
Why Mass Effect is the Most Important Science Fiction Universe of Our Generation
If all you know of the series is this trailer, you have missed out, and need to go out and buy ME1 right now.
>> ^Nebosuke:
Bleh... let's combine 2 things we already have too much of in video games: alien apocalypse and zombies.


ok, I have just done exactly that. If I am disappoint, I will be expecting $20 worth of entertainment from you

>> ^NetRunner:

Why Mass Effect is the Most Important Science Fiction Universe of Our Generation
If all you know of the series is this trailer, you have missed out, and need to go out and buy ME1 right now.
>> ^Nebosuke:
Bleh... let's combine 2 things we already have too much of in video games: alien apocalypse and zombies.



ok, I have just done exactly that. If I am disappoint, I will be expecting $20 worth of entertainment from you

Why Mass Effect is the Most Important Science Fiction Universe of Our Generation

If all you know of the series is this trailer, you have missed out, and need to go out and buy ME1 right now.

>> ^Nebosuke:

Bleh... let's combine 2 things we already have too much of in video games: alien apocalypse and zombies.

"First, importantly, science is not about disproving God. That is not its focus."

That was my point.

"Comparing God and Santa is really a false analogy."

I wasn't really trying to equate them, but in the eyes of an atheist, they are equally unlikely. I used Santa simply as an example that science can't disprove the existence of any deity or mythological figure. You can add Zeus, pixies, unicorns, Martians, and a million other things to that list. If you can imagine it, science probably can't disprove it. You say that Santa can be easily disproved. You wouldn't say that had you my parents as a young child. They had an answer for everything. Explanations for how he could get to so many houses in one night, how he got up and down the chimney without getting stuck, how he could be at two different malls at the same time, where all those elves came from, how he knew if I was bad or good (I suspected my parents were ratting me out), and how he got so many toys into one single sleigh. You see, Santa can never be disproved to those who truly believe in him because there will always be some mysterious and magical explanation for anything science could throw at it. You just need use your imagination. God is no different. That's why I didn't want to get into a debate about this with someone who is true believer. No matter what logical pitfall I could possibly construct to entrap said true believer, no matter how well-thought and reasonable, "faith" will always lift him out of whatever corner he may temporarily find himself backed into.

I've heard theists argue that science can't disprove god, as if that "fact" reinforces their belief in his existence. Science can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist any more than I could to a true believer. That's not what science is. And that's not what science tries to do.

@ Fletch. First, it is surreal to argue about religion with a happy pig named "Mr. Happy."I think it is cool actually.

You said "Atheist-leaning agnostic? Lol! Sounds like you are almost on one side of the fence but your pant leg is caught on a barb. Evolution doesn't disprove Santa either. Still think he exists? Might exist? Your assertation that science can't disprove god implies that science is trying to disprove god. No more than trying to disprove Santa. And I thinks all religions are cults of a sort."

First, importantly, science is not about disproving God. That is not its focus. It is about understanding life and nonliving systems, processes, reactions, functions... In any dcredible scientific journal, you will not see this-disproves-God's-existence postulated in the discussion segments.

Comparing God and Santa is really a false analogy. One is an Earth-bound fable and the other is most likely mischaracterized if it does in fact exist. Santa can be disproved easily yet the Universe is too vast to discredit the existence of a higher power. I choose not to follow any religion because I don't want to settle on something so absolute in its beliefs without any yearning for the truth or even reforming around science.