The outcome would be doubly sad because Lönnstedt and Dixson served as role models in a field where women are underrepresented, says Sandra Binning of the University of Montreal
The entire article is fascinating, provided you read between the lines.
Marine biology is perhaps the most feminized field in all of science because, you know, girls like dolphins. It's also radically left-wing for this reason, which is why so much of the science is so bad.
Naturally, the men pointing this out are called "bros", and their findings are disparaged for being cruel and motivated by malice - you know, "muh feelings". Can't be using good science to disprove or challenge bad science if the latter was performed by women.
Of course, the women are a smokescreen for the real liars, who condemn all critical challenges of their perfect unassailable findings as motivated by jealousy and ego. Nevermind that those findings were conveniently explosive enough to drive funding for more than a decade, after which time those studies proved more or less incorrect.
But hey, the "scientists" have excuses for that, too. Like they always do whenever they can't actually prove the incendiary, policy-deciding conclusions they've generated with their "science". And as expected, the real problem with aggressive peer review is the possibility that it might discredit the whole field - because yes, the pirates are petty enough to sink the ship.
This all mirrors the rampant dishonesty and corruption we've seen from every soft science over the last several years. From sociology to psychology to climate science, we've witnessed a steady march of activists scientists making insane claims based on fraudulent data that cannot be reproduced.
Then, when actual scientists challenge those claims, it's the same radical leftist excuses you see everywhere else: you're sexist for challenging researchers who happen to be women; you're hurting the credibility of "science" by checking questionable results; your findings are suspect because you're a straight white male.
The truth that very few people want to accept: STEM has fallen. It was converged just like any other institution, by a combination of radleft activists cooking the books and corporate and donor interests funding the revolution.
Marine biology is perhaps the most feminized field in all of science because, you know, girls like dolphins.
Perhaps? Is this your own guess, or do you have any data to back it up?
And as expected, the real problem with aggressive peer review is the possibility that it might discredit the whole field - because yes, the pirates are petty enough to sink the ship.
If psychology is any guide, a replication crisis doesn't prevent the "scientists" from continuing on their merry way and making all sorts of assertions not backed up by any facts.
The original claim was that 'marine science' is dominated by women more than any other field of science. This only shows that, like biology in general, women are in the majority here.
The entire article is fascinating, provided you read between the lines.
Marine biology is perhaps the most feminized field in all of science because, you know, girls like dolphins. It's also radically left-wing for this reason, which is why so much of the science is so bad.
Naturally, the men pointing this out are called "bros", and their findings are disparaged for being cruel and motivated by malice - you know, "muh feelings". Can't be using good science to disprove or challenge bad science if the latter was performed by women.
Of course, the women are a smokescreen for the real liars, who condemn all critical challenges of their perfect unassailable findings as motivated by jealousy and ego. Nevermind that those findings were conveniently explosive enough to drive funding for more than a decade, after which time those studies proved more or less incorrect.
But hey, the "scientists" have excuses for that, too. Like they always do whenever they can't actually prove the incendiary, policy-deciding conclusions they've generated with their "science". And as expected, the real problem with aggressive peer review is the possibility that it might discredit the whole field - because yes, the pirates are petty enough to sink the ship.
This all mirrors the rampant dishonesty and corruption we've seen from every soft science over the last several years. From sociology to psychology to climate science, we've witnessed a steady march of activists scientists making insane claims based on fraudulent data that cannot be reproduced.
Then, when actual scientists challenge those claims, it's the same radical leftist excuses you see everywhere else: you're sexist for challenging researchers who happen to be women; you're hurting the credibility of "science" by checking questionable results; your findings are suspect because you're a straight white male.
The truth that very few people want to accept: STEM has fallen. It was converged just like any other institution, by a combination of radleft activists cooking the books and corporate and donor interests funding the revolution.
Perhaps? Is this your own guess, or do you have any data to back it up?
If psychology is any guide, a replication crisis doesn't prevent the "scientists" from continuing on their merry way and making all sorts of assertions not backed up by any facts.
https://i.imgur.com/LJm04bz.png
from:
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/marine-biology-biological-oceonography#demographics
dunno anything about the source but found it pretty easily.
there's also some feminist group of 'women in ocean science' that says they're raped in the workplace day in day out, but whaddaya gonna expect...
The original claim was that 'marine science' is dominated by women more than any other field of science. This only shows that, like biology in general, women are in the majority here.