tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post7824572126315375979..comments2023-06-27T16:51:05.805+02:00Comments on The Pangrammaticon: The Anodyne AlternativeThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-49559008447397366472015-12-03T18:51:21.330+01:002015-12-03T18:51:21.330+01:00P.S. Annoy me as much as you like. I won't tak...P.S. Annoy me as much as you like. I won't take offense. :-)Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-63743569807847319372015-12-03T18:50:41.876+01:002015-12-03T18:50:41.876+01:00@Pat Sheehy
Thanks for posting under your own nam...@Pat Sheehy<br /><br />Thanks for posting under your own name. It's just so much more open, transparent and honest that way. <br /><br />I thought the 'joke' was just cringeworthy, yes. Does that mean I was primed to take offence? You're entitled to that opinion. But remember that Mary Collins described the 'joke' as "unbelievably stupid", Hunt himself said "I stood up and went mad", and Colin Blakemore, when stepping down from the ABSW, said that Hunt's words were "appalling in their silliness". So I'm not alone in thinking that it was a truly terrible 'joke'.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Philip <br /><br />Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-84416230881178400132015-12-03T16:40:54.343+01:002015-12-03T16:40:54.343+01:00Yes, I do find Philip's notion of the affect o...Yes, I do find Philip's notion of the affect of Tim Hunt's words, no matter how one interprets the latter, as hyperbolic. He has called them, for instance, 'buttock-clenchingly cringeworthy'. I do think that is the reaction of someone who, at some level, wants to take offense. We are talking, after all, of just a few rather opaque words. I believe this paucity of 'offensive' material is precisely why Connie St Louis had to embellish her account with further sexism embroideries.<br /><br />(By the way, Philip, because I know that anonymity annoys you [I wouldn't want to do that!], I own up to the name Pat Sheehy.)old boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17254230741949546324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-10590770949203389312015-12-03T15:09:06.919+01:002015-12-03T15:09:06.919+01:00I'm very much in agreement with TLITB's ap...I'm very much in agreement with TLITB's approach. It's hard to get very emotionally involved in Hunt's remarks because we know so little about them, and the people who were there to hear it have mostly stopped talking. And it's hard to forget that the first wave of outrage wasn't to the tune of "it's bad even it it's a joke" but "he wasn't joking". We're still waiting for someone to provide a credible version of the joke that is also clearly offensive. As TLITB points out, it was most certainly not about the dangers of criticizing women lest they cry.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-38333926585693000192015-12-03T11:49:13.819+01:002015-12-03T11:49:13.819+01:00@TLITB
I'll let you have the last word becau...@TLITB <br /><br />I'll let you have the last word because I've already explained my views on the joke multiple times elsewhere (see, for example, my lengthy exchanges with Debbie Kennett at my "Symptoms Of The Universe" blog). I simply have neither the time nor the inclination to repeat myself yet again. So I'll leave the last word to you.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />PhilipPhilip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-43166539860272903352015-12-03T11:19:58.045+01:002015-12-03T11:19:58.045+01:00>> So, was Hunt "speaking his mind"...>> So, was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry, or was it a self-deprecating joke? There's a major lack of <br />>> self-consistency in a position that tries to suggest he was doing both simultaneously."<br /><br />Yes I accept I was wrong to project an interpretation of this as you asserting Tim Hunt stood up and "spoke his mind" about the general principle of criticising women scientist. I didn't have enough evidence to do that.<br /><br />In fact from your explicit reply I now know without ambiguity you definitely think Tim Hunt is not a misogynist and that you think Tim Hunt was attempting to make a joke.<br /><br />However your paraphrase of Tim Hunt words still leaves me wondering: just which joke do you think Hunt was making?<br /><br />It seems you must have your own clear representation of it in your mind and I would hope that you won't just cite third parties like Colin Blakemore's single word review "appalling", a man who is no more qualified to to know the exact nature of the joke than any of us since he based his review on only 37 words. Since Blakemore only said ...<br /><br />"I remain appalled by the silliness of the 37 words of Hunt's "joke" and the way in which they have energized sexist extremists. "*<br /><br />...and so was actually only talking about the effect of the *reporting* of the 37 words, and actually saying nothing to inform us about the "joke".<br /><br />However you seem to have come to a definite picture of the joke that informs your expressive descriptions like "teeth-grindingly awful". Expressions like that seem to imply you have a vivid picture in your mind of what form the joke must have consisted. I don't have such a firm picture myself. Whenever I hear someone relate an incomplete story to me I find it almost impossible to become that emotionally involved - I might sympathise with the emotions of the story-teller but I would always find it easy to refrain from adopting a similar heightened level of emotional engagement especially from such a short report. <br /><br />For instance, I haven't seen John McDonnell's "little red book" joke in anything like full. I have glimpsed snippets, and seen much mocking on twitter, but I honestly assure you I have not read detailed reports so I have no real opinion yet on how (in)appropriate it was. However I do realise that McDonnell's Labour leader, Corbyn, is much reviled across a wide political spectrum and I do think that there is a large chance a large part of the "reviews" of his joke may be excessively informed by that prior emotion.<br /><br />However in McDonnell's case we have the benefit of full audio and visual depiction, so one day I may get round to seeing it for myself; I think only then will I be able allow myself the luxury of definitively saying *I* think it was "teeth-grindingly awful ", if indeed it was.<br /><br />Arguably I don't think this is a failing on my part. I know that maybe illustrates my shocking lack of engagement with politics ;) But then I think it also illustrates how a level of prior engagement with a subject can sometimes short-circuit clear thinking.<br /><br />So I still remain puzzled by your paraphrase here: <br /><br />"...was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry"<br /><br />while I now agree this is not you saying Tim Hunt was seriously asserting a generalisation about women, I still see that as a novel interpretation of what little we know, and since that novel construction is emerging only from you I still wonder what joke you think Hunt made. <br />For instance I argue your summary goes against any idea of a joke I would have, Hunt isn't reported as saying "in case" they cry, that goes against the reporting of his joke using hyperbolic implication of "They always cry when I do it!"<br /><br />Do you not see that? <br />TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-79194752644875859882015-12-03T09:13:54.953+01:002015-12-03T09:13:54.953+01:00The quote in context:
"I've explained (s...The quote in context:<br /><br />"I've explained (several times) [why] ... To me, there's no contradiction."<br /><br />But you've got this tendency to bear down on simple sentences like, "I was only being honest" or "I'm terribly sorry." I guess you're emboldened by being able to understand their grammar and think that's where you've won the argument.<br /><br />See you around, maybe. ;-)<br />Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-38735325644029713732015-12-03T08:46:29.101+01:002015-12-03T08:46:29.101+01:00"To me, there's no contradiction".
..."To me, there's no contradiction".<br /><br />Therefore, of course, there's no contradiction. Right? :-)<br /><br />Bye, Thomas.Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-71664442922360934772015-12-03T08:30:43.734+01:002015-12-03T08:30:43.734+01:00We are going around the loop because you're st...We are going around the loop because you're stuck in it, Philip. I've explained (several times) how Hunt could have been speaking his mind about laboratory romance <i>and</i> been telling a self-deprecating joke (about his way about women) at the same time. To me, there's no contradiction. And this tension between two idioms is, in any case, not a point we need to revisit (loop back to) because I have, for the sake of argument, i.e., for the sake of moving the argument along (not around), granted that it would be sufficient for my point that he made the mistake of being unguarded and non-ideological.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-81710116311194443092015-12-03T08:23:25.840+01:002015-12-03T08:23:25.840+01:00Apologies. "We are not going around the loop....Apologies. "We are not going around the loop..." should have been "We are now going around the loop..."Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-6175580729785759632015-12-03T08:22:42.126+01:002015-12-03T08:22:42.126+01:00Thomas,
Rereading my comment, however, I can see...Thomas,<br /><br /><i> Rereading my comment, however, I can see that my point was also that by humiliating Tim Hunt the way he was, the message that really was sent to future speakers (within earshot of science writers) is "Don't speak your mind!"</i><br /><br />Again, you use the "Don't speak your mind!" phrase. That simply does not sit well -- despite your earlier attempts at justification, and for all the reasons I've given -- with the idea that Hunt was telling a self-deprecating joke. <br /><br />We are not going round the loop for what must be the tenth time. As I said a few days ago, Thomas, let's agree to disagree on this. You're not convincing me of your position and vice versa. (And the sometimes unclear language is not helping make our exchanges any less needlessly time-consuming). <br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />PhilipPhilip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-3715141038157153572015-12-03T08:16:19.015+01:002015-12-03T08:16:19.015+01:00Thomas,
"Yes, I'd say looking up idioms ...Thomas,<br /><br /><i>"Yes, I'd say looking up idioms in a dictionary to debate word choices that have already been clarified is pedantic."</i><br /><br />Oh dear, Thomas. You didn't address my point at all. <br /><br />Do you (dis)agree that those two idioms are entirely different in meaning? <br /><br />It is not pedantry at all to show you the dictionary definitions. You clearly assumed that the idioms were interchangeable. This was incorrect. It is not pedantry to point out that the idiom used was entirely misplaced.<br /><br />Do you agree that a writer has an obligation to express themselves clearly and unambiguously? Or do you still argue that the reader should be responsible for guessing what the writer wanted to say? If the latter, could you address my point about the parallels with teaching?<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Philip<br />Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-85910449149776177402015-12-03T08:09:33.013+01:002015-12-03T08:09:33.013+01:00"I'm sorry I misunderstood you."
Th..."I'm sorry I misunderstood you."<br /><br />Thank you, TLITB, that's big of you. In return, my apologies for the brusque and irritated tone of my responses to you above. (I really do wish you wouldn't write under a pseudonym, however...)<br /><br /><i>"I see now. In the above you mean to illustrate how you really think Thomas was offering you two different contradictory interpretations when he ended his first comment with:<br /><br />"(I think he was just trying to be mildly entertaining, actually.) In short, he should not have spoken his mind.""<br /></i><br /><br />That's exactly it. "Spoken his mind" is a totally different idiom to "Spoke off the top of his head", as I explain to Thomas above.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />PhilipPhilip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-7316850003438944702015-12-03T08:08:57.460+01:002015-12-03T08:08:57.460+01:00Yes, I'd say looking up idioms in a dictionary...Yes, I'd say looking up idioms in a dictionary to debate word choices that have already been clarified is pedantic.<br /><br />I thought it would move the conversation forward (as I'm going to do in the rest of this comment) to allow that Hunt maybe wasn't, strictly speaking, "speaking his mind", but was being too frank or unguarded. Rereading my comment, however, I can see that my point was also that by humiliating Tim Hunt the way he was, the message that really was sent to <i>future</i> speakers (within earshot of science writers) is "Don't speak your mind!" It's too risky. Instead of speaking freely, or just musing out loud, make sure you're mouthing official dogmas that will offend no one. That's probably why that "idiom" came into my mind, which I then spoke off the top of my head with my heart on my sleeve, if you will.<br /><br />I think there's a sense in which Hunt was asked to speak about women in science and he chose to, yes, speak (a very small, informal piece of) his mind (he chose to be "honest", as he put it), instead of making an institutionally sanctioned statement. That turned out to be a mistake, not because his honest mind is full of offensive views about women (it's not), but because there people in the room who were disposed to enforce ideological speech/thought codes and, it seems, had an agenda that could be promoted by smearing the name of a Fellow of the Royal Society.<br /><br />At any event that I might either organize or cover as a journalist (or, in this case, essentially both), I would do everything I could to avoid sending this message to future speakers. I would therefore let a poor joke fall flat (if that's what happened) and, in the face of outrage (if there really was outrage), initially defend the good intentions of the speaker, who may have misspoken or been misheard. After all, it would have been my decision to ask him to speak. That decision itself needs defending when the speaker offends the audience.<br /><br />The behavior of conference organizers and science journalists (and, in the final instance, academic institutions) determines what kind of conversations scientists "feel free" to have at conferences. I think Connie St Louis' behaviour (which represents both that of an organizer and a journalist) is likely to make WCSJ a more guarded and anodyne event in the future. Speakers will (and rationally <i>should</i>) only accept invitations to speak, formally or informally, if they are certain their views are in line with the reigning orthodoxy.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-65738629540421346382015-12-03T01:55:58.628+01:002015-12-03T01:55:58.628+01:00@Philip Moriarty
>> So, was Hunt "spea...@Philip Moriarty<br /><br />>> So, was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry, or was it a self-deprecating joke? There's a major lack of <br />>> self-consistency in a position that tries to suggest he was doing both simultaneously."<br /><br />I see now. In the above you mean to illustrate how you really think Thomas was offering you two different contradictory interpretations when he ended his first comment with:<br /><br />"(I think he was just trying to be mildly entertaining, actually.) In short, he should not have spoken his mind."<br /><br />Since that's the only place where Thomas used the idiom.<br /><br />You really interpreted that as Thomas suggesting Hunt was speaking his mind about "the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry" *and* suggesting Hunt was making a self-deprecating joke.<br /><br />Considering myself a defender of Tim Hunt I would think it pretty crap argument in his defence to say that he was speaking his mind that way, and I would like to think if I was on the other side of the debate I would ask myself whether that could ever be said by any defender. <br /><br />But's that's me - I'm probably projecting my expectations. However I now realise you tried to ascertain the truth by paraphrasing Thomas's stance in a totally different context and adding heightened words like *danger* which clarified your position in a different way that left me wondering if you were only projecting your prejudice.<br /><br />I'm sorry I misunderstood you.<br />TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-44930059855011285862015-12-03T00:15:11.902+01:002015-12-03T00:15:11.902+01:00@TTLIB (or whatever combination of random letters ...@TTLIB (or whatever combination of random letters it is that you've chosen for your pseudonym)<br /><br />#2 of 2<br />--------<br /><br />You also say...<br /><br /><i> This is nothing to do with anyone "speaking their mind" or "being candid" you are only fooling yourself if you think it is. This is about your apparent determination to see Tim Hunt as denigrating women and to claim that he used words to generalise a denigrating view of women.</i><br /><br />*headdesk* <br /><br />*faceplam*<br /><br />Sorry for the 'drama' but it is so infuriating to have to deal with comments like that (which, for one thing, contrast so distinctly with Thomas' thoughtful and considered posts/comments. I may not agree with him but at least he does me the basic courtesy of reading what I've written and not attributing views to me I don't hold).<br /><br />Again, I didn't introduce those terms to the debate. Thomas did.<br /><br /><i> his is about your apparent determination to see Tim Hunt as denigrating women and to claim that he used words to generalise a denigrating view of women.</i><br /><br />function_rebuttal{}<br /><br />And just to hammer that point home (again, for the n^(n+1)th time), my point is that yes, it was a joke. But it was a dumb, stupid, misjudged, appalling (to quote Colin Blakemore; yes <i>that</i> Colin Blakemore; he who resigned from the ABSW), and teeth-grindingly awful joke. Just like -- to repeat an example above (again) -- John McDonnell's "little red book" joke from a week ago was a dumb, stupid, misjudged, appalling, awful joke. And it had consequences: it damaged the reputation of the Labour party. Just as Hunt's joke had consequences: it damaged the reputation of the Royal Society (in particular, their entirely laudable efforts to address gender inequality; 2 out of 43 URFs awarded to women in 2014...)Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-19865404912777260472015-12-03T00:13:14.121+01:002015-12-03T00:13:14.121+01:00@TTLIB (or whatever combination of random letters ...@TTLIB (or whatever combination of random letters it is that you've chosen for your pseudonym)<br /><br />#1 of 2<br />--------<br /><br /><i>When you say >> was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry<br /><br />These are *your* words implying that either you think Tim Hunt has made this generalisation, or that someone else has supported the idea Tim Hunt made this generalisation.<br /></i><br /><br />No. Absolutely not. Those are Thomas' words. He used the term "speaking his mind". Not me. Thomas. <br /><br />*Pleeeeease* take the time to read what Thomas and I have written. It will save us all so much time!! Moreover, Thomas writes rather engagingly and his posts are fun to read so please do him the courtesy of actually reading what he has written. Ta!<br /><br /><i> Let's be really specific: Tim Hunt never said anything like 'let me warn you about the [general] dangers of criticising women scientists'. Even relying on the core 37 words of Connie St Louis quotes you can't derive a justification for anything like this claim.</i><br /><br />I'm so very fed up of going round in circles on this one. I'll try for the umpteenth blasted time to express it in terms even you can grasp. (I'm also going to label it as a function so I don't have to repeat myself for the n^nth time later on).<br /> <br />function_rebuttal{}<br /> <br />{<br />1. I agree that Tim Hunt was attempting to make a joke.<br /><br />2. I agree that Tim Hunt is not a misogynist. (And nowhere have I said he is).<br /><br />3. *I* didn't suggest that the "When you criticise girls they cry" phrase wasn't a (truly atrocious and teeth-grindingly awful) attempt at misplaced humour. Thomas suggested this, using terms such as "candid" and "speaking his mind". (As I note in my previous comment to Thomas, choice of words and language -- and, yes, context -- is ever-so important). <br /><br />4. When did I ever even begin to attempt to start to even vaguely suggest that Tim Hunt said anything like "'let me warn you about the [general] dangers of criticising women scientists'." Please point me to where I even vaguely suggested that.<br />}<br /><br /><br />This is what's great for you when writing under a pseudonym -- you can throw out whatever unsubstantiated nonsense you like and not have to take responsibility for your words (because no-one knows who you are). (I make a very similar point in a debate with PubPeer to be published in the Times Higher Education next week. I'll make sure to send you a link).<br /><br />Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-7317537570255207222015-12-02T23:49:23.767+01:002015-12-02T23:49:23.767+01:00Thomas
As I said on Twitter, I find it fascinatin...Thomas<br /><br />As I said on Twitter, I find it fascinating that what I see as a glaring misuse of an idiom, you reject as being pedantry that only I would pick up on!<br /><br />As I also mused over at Twitter, is it possible that this is due to the subtlety of English idioms. Is your first language English? <br /><br />Here are the idioms explained:<br /><br />"Speak one's mind" -- http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/speak+one%27s+mind <br /><br />"Speak off the top of one's head" -- http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+the+top+of+head <br /><br />Those are drastically different idioms. "Speak one's mind" implies stating heartfelt/deeply held views. "Speaking off the top of one's head" is very different -- not just subtly different. It implies a very rushed, ill-considered set of statements (which is not at all the case for the "speak one's mind" idiom).<br /><br />As I also said over at Twitter, you as the writer have to take responsibility for putting across your views in as clear and unambiguous a fashion as possible. It is no use expecting the reader to read your mind and come to the judgement *you* feel is most appropriate! <br /><br />The parallels with teaching here are strong. (As you know, I'm a lecturer). If I explain something and a student doesn't "get" it, is that solely the student's fault? Or should I share in the blame? Or, indeed, take all of the blame?Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-40991885690218585192015-12-02T18:23:57.215+01:002015-12-02T18:23:57.215+01:00Also, if "pedantry" only covers nitpicki...Also, if "pedantry" only covers nitpicking over spelling errors for you, well, maybe that's got something to do with working in the natural sciences, where I guess all terminological disputes are always substantive?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-26551937368905650042015-12-02T18:21:19.488+01:002015-12-02T18:21:19.488+01:00I think you may be almost alone in that opinion, P...I think you may be almost alone in that opinion, Philip. Or, like I said on Twitter, you may be indicating an approach to language that perhaps uniquely defines those who were outraged by what they were told Tim Hunt said in Seoul. It makes sense that someone who can find no non-offensive sense in Hunt's remarks would also equate what most of us would consider ordinary acts of interpretation with "guessing" or "mind reading". As if words have some sort of entirely unproblematic literal meaning that can't be cleared up in further conversation. It's the sort of language competence that is implicit in finding "Made you say it!" jokes funny. Most of the universe of discourse must be an utter puzzle to you.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-84393690661798060152015-12-02T17:59:44.734+01:002015-12-02T17:59:44.734+01:00Thomas,
As I've explained via Twitter, it'...Thomas,<br /><br />As I've explained via Twitter, it's very far from "pedantic literalism" to point out that what you wanted to say was not what you wrote. You're a writing coach, right? You know the value of clearly expressing yourself. It's not as if you dropped an apostrophe or wrote "they're" as "their" or similar. You wrote something which did not accurately express what you wanted to say. And instead of having the intellectual honesty to admit to that deficiency in your writing, you blame the reader for not being able to guess what it was you had in mind.<br /><br />"Speaking his mind" and "speaking off the top of his head" are very, very different phrases. You can argue the toss about this as much as you like but it is exceptionally sloppy writing to confuse the two. <br /><br />Philip<br />Philip Moriartyhttp://muircheart.wordpress.com/aboutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-49815902218253612042015-12-02T15:46:43.851+01:002015-12-02T15:46:43.851+01:00Hi Philip, Not to interject myself too much into y...Hi Philip, Not to interject myself too much into your dispute with TLITB, but I really am puzzled by your somewhat pedantic literalism. As I have also explained before (though, unlike you, I really don't mind explaining things several times in different ways) it's entirely possible to be "candid" about your love life and self-deprecating about your power or talent or honours or even understanding of women. Indeed, it's possible to be entirely candid <i>and</i> self-deprecating even about a single thing, like your love life. One can be heartfelt, heartily, even heartbreakingly self-deprecating, can't one?<br /><br />Likewise, I really don't think the distinction between "he shouldn't have spoken his mind" and "he shouldn't have spoken off the top of his head" is as great, even in most contexts, as you think. Certainly in the context of an improvised toast like this, they are virtually equivalent. You've said that "context is everything", but you sometimes seem to forget things we're pretty sure we know about the context. And, like Old Bones says, where we don't know enough about the context to be sure about the content, Hunt deserves the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />If he and Mary Collins hadn't themselves called his remarks "stupid", I wouldn't even assume that any longer. But I'm certainly not going conclude anything about Hunt's sincere, candid, or honest opinion of female scientist from the remarks he made in Seoul. There's just too much I'm in doubt about. And no adequate basis on which to settle it.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-41619740145536386972015-12-02T15:12:55.667+01:002015-12-02T15:12:55.667+01:00Hi Bones, I agree completely. What Hunt deserved i...Hi Bones, I agree completely. What Hunt deserved is not support of whatever opinion we think he expressed but the benefit of the doubt. My argument is generally that Hunt could well have been saying something entirely supportive of women in science, and something only slightly revealing about his attitudes about romance in the lab. His (live) audience could easily take from it whatever they wanted, and remain completely unharmed by the rest. They could even let it contribute to their overall impression of the man. What he did <i>not</i> deserve was to be called out as a misogynist (or even a casual sexist) before a global public, nor to lose valuable positions and honours. Connie St Louis led the charge, but UCL (especially) failed in their immediate responsibility to protect him from such capricious misinterpretations.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-52412387140786664992015-12-02T12:08:23.658+01:002015-12-02T12:08:23.658+01:00Tim Hunt's jokey words were an exceedingly bri...Tim Hunt's jokey words were an exceedingly brief assay into linguistic territory that is essentially tentative, suggestive, ambivalent and contradictory. The territory of irony. When it comes to human speech of this darting intuitive kind, there can be no universal agreement as to what was meant by what was said. Tim Hunt's supporters are just as confident that they are right, competent and clear-sighted as his critics. In reality, all is rather cloudy uncertainty. Given that uncertain reality, shouldn't we rely above all on what Thomas has elsewhere referred to as 'goodwill'; shouldn't Tim Hunt, at the very least, be given the benefit of the doubt? The current regime of ultra-sensitivity to 'offense' can all too easily morph into the fascist way of thinking that Thomas highlights at the start of his post.old boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17254230741949546324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-20584365405770208292015-12-02T11:32:25.364+01:002015-12-02T11:32:25.364+01:00@Philip Moriarty
When you say
>> was Hunt...@Philip Moriarty<br /><br />When you say <br /><br />>> was Hunt "speaking his mind" about the dangers of criticising women scientists in case they cry<br /><br />These are *your* words implying that either you think Tim Hunt has made this generalisation, or that someone else has supported the idea Tim Hunt made this generalisation.<br /><br />Let's be really specific: Tim Hunt never said anything like 'let me warn you about the [general] dangers of criticising women scientists'. Even relying on the core 37 words of Connie St Louis quotes you can't derive a justification for anything like this claim.<br /><br />Neither has Thomas said anything like "Tim Hunt has spoken his mind about how when you [*you* as in generalising] criticise women they cry".<br /><br />So where have you got this from? Your dichotomy was false.<br /><br />This is nothing to do with anyone "speaking their mind" or "being candid" you are only fooling yourself if you think it is. This is about your apparent determination to see Tim Hunt as denigrating women and to claim that he used words to generalise a denigrating view of women.<br /><br />This determination of yours is clear evidence of a prejudicial belief you hold. Fair enough, but you must realise that when you talk to people who don't hold your particular prejudice then when you use words that imply an a priori view of Tim Hunt as a denigrater women, as if it is an accepted fact, you will find that people will respond and tell you they don't agree with them. It seems you find this fact 'remarkable'.<br /><br />Now that *is* remarkable. And little strange.<br /><br />Sorry.TLITBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639419243076322855noreply@blogger.com