ffordesoon wrote:The science you presumably mean to refer to is statistics; biology is very different from statistics, and though the two disciplines do intersect on occasion, even a consistent statistical correlation across time periods does not necessarily imply causation. Myriad factors determine our genetic traits; "physically deficient" is a separate trait from "woman", and you cannot simply propose that one is definitely and without argument the cause of the other. That's just poor science, and any scientist of any discipline would tell you the same thing.
Actually, in a certain way, science is somehow always not so far from statistics, if we think about it. What does determine a scientific law in the end? It's the ability to prove that what we can conclude from an observation is consistent by reproducing the experiment giving the same results in the same conditions. So, basically, when it leads to 100% chance or almost that the thing works like that, it is considered true, and the consequence of that is that the only constant in science is that it disproves itself over time (which doesn't mean that it has to start from the beginning each time, but given the symbiotic nature of things, every modification changes everything
...). However, this is different from the point you were making of course... Just some two cents aside.
Hiver wrote:- despite me being factually right. that somehow just doesnt matter..
The thing is that you have nothing factually right, and your arguments are the weakest (and rarest) of all.
He wins the fact that he is wise enough to question himself and keep it level-headed, which is at your opposite. You're still not able to understand that the extremists views that you're attributing to us is just the reflect of your own mind. So yes, humans... they can be better
when they have a brain.
What will change the world in the first place is not what we will do, but what we will refuse to do yet...