"The WAIS-R arithmetic score also depended on sex, being higher for men than for women (12.1 vs 11.1, t149 = 2.4, p = 0.02), and on occupation, being higher for participants in biological/physical than in social fields."
Is this allowed?
Is this allowed?
The study doesn’t clarify that the difference is due to discrimination, which is why it’s unclear why the statement was allowed.
Undergrad psychology programs tend to have more female than male students, so their first result may be related to the second.
The "scientist" in this study posit the existence of many non-observable entities: "mathematical intelligence", "nonmathematical intelligence", "systemising mechanisms" and "empathising mechanisms" and "lawful systems." Then he posits a theory which relates these entities -- which, again, are not observable or real in any sense. Finally he collects real data to support his theories about all these imaginary entities. Now, data is always good, but you can see the problem here?
No attempt is ever made to ground any of this in observable reality. It's garbage in, garbage out, from the get go.
Unfortunately this sort of pseudo-science, as we've seen time and again, can be seized upon by all manner of propagandists eager to push their narrative. That's why this sort of nonsense -- which is non-sense in the purest form because we cannot observe or measure any of the entities supposedly at work here -- is very popular with the public but is regarded very suspiciously by actual scientists.
Like most of mathematics and computer science?
None of this is particularly controversial but you can see by the downvotes how committed people are to their various self-serving narratives.
How can you see this purely based on downvotes?
Judging by the fact that most maths degrees are listed as science degrees, it's pretty clear that "mathematics is not science" is a controversial claim.
Even outside of math departments I see some evidence of that agreement -- for example, why else would the "STEM" acronym list Science and Math separately?
How colleges categorize their departments has an element of politics to it, so I wouldn't pay much attention to that. I've got both a math and science degree, and none of my professors or peers would consider math to be part of science -- even considering our math department was listed under our science department. I think OP is correct that this topic is not controversial at all, at least among the people who actually do math and do science. There's no question that math and science are completely separate things.
As with all things though, it comes down to definitions and with the more specific and academic understanding of science, it is easy to see how (pure) mathematics isn't a science. Indeed, a lot of computer science somewhat doesn't fit well as a science - like FP.
It's quite a controversial statement that can be construed as aggressive which is probably why you're getting downvotes but I think you're right to point out how confronting your own assumptions/axioms can bring out strange reactions.
As I understand it, most science involves using instruments to measure quantities that fit into some simplified model of the world. How does this differ?