Surely You’re a Creep, Mr. Feynman(thebaffler.com)
thebaffler.com
Surely You’re a Creep, Mr. Feynman
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-feynman-mcneill
9 コメント
That logic cuts both ways. If we’re harassing women out of the field then how many Marie Curie types have we lost to mysogyny? I believe that’s what she means by “control the story and direction of science”.
It’s about power but it’s not unfair to say there have been historical power imbalances in science due to unscientific things like misogyny and homophobia.
I do think the article could do a better job of articulating that and could be less accusatory overall. I actually think this article fucking sucks tbh even though I agree with its thesis.
It’s about power but it’s not unfair to say there have been historical power imbalances in science due to unscientific things like misogyny and homophobia.
I do think the article could do a better job of articulating that and could be less accusatory overall. I actually think this article fucking sucks tbh even though I agree with its thesis.
The Marie Curies and Emmy Noethers aren't going to be stopped by the comparatively tiny levels of misogyny today, they weren't then.
The sentence you quoted seems to have no relation to the content of your reply.
Whether or not social science is a lesser form of science (and i may even agree with you that it is) has no bearing on two important questions:
1) Should we separate a person's character from their output. Can we celebrate a person's accomplishments even while recognizing their human flaws. [I say yes, and I think some go too paint both with the same brush]
2) Should we stop turning a blind eye to misogyny, sexual harassment, and generally hostile work environments based on an aura of genius around the person creating this, or is it just an inherent "the end justifies the means" scenario. [To this, I also say yes. One's genius is not diminished by having to be civil, respectful, or not discriminatory. See: Linus Torvald's recent revelations].
That is to say, we need to both celebrate people like Richard Feynman's accomplishments, but do so honestly and transparently that they were a product of a different time and certain of their actions are simply not acceptable in a modern society. That means neither glossing over their flaws nor dismissing them for them.
In that sense, both "“predatory behaviour towards women,” without further explanation", and "Surely You're a Creep, Mr Feynman" are equally not helpful.
Feynman was not a creep for his time. And his predatory behaviour needs full explanation and description in discussions of his work.
Whether or not social science is a lesser form of science (and i may even agree with you that it is) has no bearing on two important questions:
1) Should we separate a person's character from their output. Can we celebrate a person's accomplishments even while recognizing their human flaws. [I say yes, and I think some go too paint both with the same brush]
2) Should we stop turning a blind eye to misogyny, sexual harassment, and generally hostile work environments based on an aura of genius around the person creating this, or is it just an inherent "the end justifies the means" scenario. [To this, I also say yes. One's genius is not diminished by having to be civil, respectful, or not discriminatory. See: Linus Torvald's recent revelations].
That is to say, we need to both celebrate people like Richard Feynman's accomplishments, but do so honestly and transparently that they were a product of a different time and certain of their actions are simply not acceptable in a modern society. That means neither glossing over their flaws nor dismissing them for them.
In that sense, both "“predatory behaviour towards women,” without further explanation", and "Surely You're a Creep, Mr Feynman" are equally not helpful.
Feynman was not a creep for his time. And his predatory behaviour needs full explanation and description in discussions of his work.
We can separate regard for the scientist from regard for the science.
[deleted]
It's desperately sad, yet funny how they both
1) admit that theirs is purely a power play. In their case, it's supposedly a good point. THEY must have the power to control, well everything, but in this case the "direction and story of physics". Merely the future, and the past, of physics. They should be able to use this power for their own ends (which are good, by definition, and in any case they never discuss that)
2) Why are we to go along with this ? Because people who did things for power plays are bad. The people who do "control" (... right ...) the direction and story of physics used that power for their own ends. (except those people never really controlled anything about physics, they just played some role in our discovery of a structure that already existed long before their ancestors started laying eggs)
Well, I must say I find it somewhat unlikely that the new boss will be better than the old boss. Wait ... what exactly is the argument here ? By their own measure, they are VERY bad. How are they different from Feynman ? Well, first of all, they never accomplished anything in the things they're looking to change. Secondly the social sciences are incredibly famous for having widespread abuses, far more than the exact sciences. They have been caught at wide-scale scientific fraud, they are famous for serious quality problems in their own field, fraudulently representing their own science to government and getting laws from that, personal abuses (including all kinds of sexual abuse you could come up with. Professors abusing students (male prof-female student, female prof-male student, gay male prof-gay male student, gay male prof, non-gay male student, gay female prof-straight male student (yes, really. Think humuliation), gay female prof-female student, ...)
In other words, they "are the cure" ... that's FAR worse than the disease.
Anyone remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism ? That was essentially the same, except for being much more successful in actual change than the social sciences ever were. Let's keep it that way ...
1) admit that theirs is purely a power play. In their case, it's supposedly a good point. THEY must have the power to control, well everything, but in this case the "direction and story of physics". Merely the future, and the past, of physics. They should be able to use this power for their own ends (which are good, by definition, and in any case they never discuss that)
2) Why are we to go along with this ? Because people who did things for power plays are bad. The people who do "control" (... right ...) the direction and story of physics used that power for their own ends. (except those people never really controlled anything about physics, they just played some role in our discovery of a structure that already existed long before their ancestors started laying eggs)
Well, I must say I find it somewhat unlikely that the new boss will be better than the old boss. Wait ... what exactly is the argument here ? By their own measure, they are VERY bad. How are they different from Feynman ? Well, first of all, they never accomplished anything in the things they're looking to change. Secondly the social sciences are incredibly famous for having widespread abuses, far more than the exact sciences. They have been caught at wide-scale scientific fraud, they are famous for serious quality problems in their own field, fraudulently representing their own science to government and getting laws from that, personal abuses (including all kinds of sexual abuse you could come up with. Professors abusing students (male prof-female student, female prof-male student, gay male prof-gay male student, gay male prof, non-gay male student, gay female prof-straight male student (yes, really. Think humuliation), gay female prof-female student, ...)
In other words, they "are the cure" ... that's FAR worse than the disease.
Anyone remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism ? That was essentially the same, except for being much more successful in actual change than the social sciences ever were. Let's keep it that way ...
[deleted]
The second part of that sentence really highlights the true motives behind this movement. These social science types don't understand (or purposefully downplay) that while theirs is a game of subjective popularity based reasoning, physics is not. The scientist's behavior and his scientific findings are not linked in any way.
If I prove an asteroid is coming towards earth, you can't pretend it's not there because you don't like my personality.
This is all about power, and trying to change the framing from an objective one to a subjective one even in the hard sciences.