jostpuur
- 2,112
- 19
I just made a curious remark: All people who believe they have personal unification theories and so on, are male. Is there not female cranks at all?
The discussion revolves around the perception of gender in relation to individuals who propose personal unification theories in physics, with a focus on whether all such individuals are male. Participants explore the presence of female "cranks" in the context of physics and mysticism, and the societal implications of these views.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether all cranks are male or the nature of female involvement in similar theories. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on gender and belief in science versus mysticism.
Participants acknowledge the complexity of defining "crank" theories and the influence of societal norms on gender representation in scientific discourse. The discussion touches on the blurred lines between pseudoscience and accepted scientific discourse.
tribdog said:Oh, there are a few cranky females. In more ways than one.
I tried explaining my interest in astronomy to my girlfriend and she told me she was a Gemini. Is astrology a crank theory?
rewebster said:most women I know want to believe in the 'magic' of ...!
I think its part of the 'shiny knight'/'happily ever after' / 'if only...' syndrome
Math Is Hard said:I think there are plenty of female cranks out there. They are just more invested in mysticism rather than cranky physics.
JasonRox said:That's because females are never wrong.
arildno said:Well, it was the famed Ms. Lucie Irigaray who said that Newton's "principia" was a rape manual.
She also said that it was the phallocentrism of males which explained why structural mechanics was so more successful than fluid mechanics, because the latter had more affinity with the female principle of menstruation..
Probably, it is his review "Postmodernism Disrobed" of Alan Sokal's "Intellectual Impostures":jostpuur said:Isn't this about postmodern social constructionism? Is it appropriate to call it pseudoscience or crackpottery?
I've read an article by Dawkins, and I think he mentioned this Irigaray, although I don't remember for sure and I cannot find the article now. (It's the fluid mechanics argument that I feel like remembering...)
jimmysnyder said:i asked my wife why men were rational beings who understand science while women were irrational crackpots that believe in mysticism. She turned me into a toad.
tribdog said:I wouldn't say they believe in it, they wish it was true. but with comments like that you've shown why they don't believe in it.
Only those that come with a crank shaft!jostpuur said:Are all cranks male?
They are nuts..Gokul43201 said:Only those that come with a crank shaft!
I was wondering the same thing as I read the first few replies...maybe nobody notices a crank if she's got a large chest and a tight, low-cut shirt on.ubermensch said:"HEY! Whats your Sign?" asked the blond girl wearing a tank top and really tight jeans.
An even better explanation.JasonRox said:That's because females are never wrong.
Gokul43201 said:Only those that come with a crank shaft!
Moonbear said:I was wondering the same thing as I read the first few replies...maybe nobody notices a crank if she's got a large chest and a tight, low-cut shirt on.
An even better explanation.![]()
![]()
JasonRox said:That's because females are never wrong.
Yeah, she's dead now. She was constantly vandalizing wikipedia too.George Jones said:Before I started posting on PF, A female crank was banned from here for her views on quantum theory. She posted under her real name.