What's your evidence, Richard Easton??!?
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
1402 points (96.1% liked)
Science Memes
11148 readers
4139 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know who this guy is. Did he do something to Lamarr?
He's the guy in the comment asking for evidence. Which I don't think is wrong, but it seems like he could've done some research and they could've posted a link for anyone who wanted to know more
plus he literally tried to snotnose the official twitter of the US Cyber Command posting something that is deeply within their field in their offical capacity for women's history month. It does rather present him as acting in bad faith
It's the 21st Century now. There is no authoritive source of information, they should've added a link to back themselves up. Looking through Wikipedia, calling her the "Mother of WiFi" is a bit rich when there were probably other women more directly involved in WiFi who are more deserving of that title. But she is just the character required to appease the Twitter mob for another day
She invented the foundation of the technology
We call Alan Turing the father of modern computing, because he invented the foundation of the technology
Women more directly involved wouldn't be the "mother" of the technology, they would be the "creator"
It's very loose terminology. We call Oppenheimer the father of the atomic bomb when Einstein, etc laid the foundation for the technology. It's a stupid thing to be arguing about
Einstein didn't lay the foundation for the technology, he laid the foundation for the standard model. We call him the father of modern physics. He made the math work, the bomb was already being developed by the Germans. He didn't come up with the idea, he didn't come up with the technology, he just consulted.
Oppenheimer built and led the team that built the bomb. The theories weren't complete, the technology didn't exist, no one had laid out an equation that enabled the technology - they did all that in the Manhattan project.
Every person called the father or mother of is a hero, in both the literary and personal sense. They represent looking at something in a new way - their name is an embodiment of a certain way of thinking.
You took a shot at that for no reason
Attributing someone as the "mother" or "father" of anything is a stupid simplification. Probably some dumb American thing. It's just stupid. Not only does it imply that there can only be one female and/or male with this title for any given field ("the"), it can be inaccurate. In general by making this simplification you are setting two different standards of contribution, which goes against any idea of equality. I'd rather consider them substantial contributors. That way these arguments are completely avoided.
I really have no idea why you're acting like this is a common argument people get into...
This is a very old and organic tradition you're criticizing as an outsider. It's given by the community as a person's contributions change into a legacy that will inspire new generations and ingrain respect for the shoulders you stand on
Without understanding the what and why, you're arguing against a cultural practice in the scientific community. I'm trying to give you context, and you keep trying to poke holes instead of trying to understand
Have a nice day!
You too