Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Monday, April 12, 2010
Women in Space
Cherie W. Rolfe has a couple of posts up on women astronauts. The first has pictures, the second the list of the scientific discriminations the Chinese make among women who would be "the perfect woman" in that space program of theirs.
The Bold and the Brave, including Monique Frize and her students
The central portion of The Bold and the Brave explores issues for women in contemporary engineering and science, but the book begins with sections on the philosophical and historical views of women's nature and nurture.
Plato, for example, was opposed to equality for all women, but believed that some women were better equipped to be leaders than some men and therefore deserved the same training and education.
Aristotle, on the other hand, believed the female is a "deformed male." Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that science is beyond a woman's grasp, so her education should be practical. David Hume wrote that women "are too easily swayed by their emotions."
Despite the fact that society agreed that women were not suited to science by their own nature and education was routinely denied their nurture, some woman made significant contributions to science. They rarely got credit for it.
The Danish astronomer Sophia Brahe (1556-1643) helped her brother Tycho Brahe predict comets and eclipses, but Tycho usually gets the credit.
Maria Winkelmann (1670-1720) discovered a comet, but her husband's name was on the report.
-----
the above is an excerpt from an essay "From martyrdom to poor Mrs. Einstein: For women, science and engineering has been -- and is -- a long, hard road" by Joanne Laucius in which she reviews the book -- The Bold and the Brave: A History of Women in Science and Engineering, a contemporary report and history -- by Monique Frize.
Laucius notes: "Frize is a scientist, so it's no surprise that she uses numbers to illuminate the modern part of the story, which has hardly been a steady upwards-and-onwards. The Montreal massacre didn't appear to immediately discourage young Canadian women from studying engineering. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of young women who enrolled in undergraduate engineering courses increased to 22 per cent from 12 per cent."
Frize is also a writing professor (or at least gets her students writing history in and history of science). Read the rest here.
Plato, for example, was opposed to equality for all women, but believed that some women were better equipped to be leaders than some men and therefore deserved the same training and education.
Aristotle, on the other hand, believed the female is a "deformed male." Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that science is beyond a woman's grasp, so her education should be practical. David Hume wrote that women "are too easily swayed by their emotions."
Despite the fact that society agreed that women were not suited to science by their own nature and education was routinely denied their nurture, some woman made significant contributions to science. They rarely got credit for it.
The Danish astronomer Sophia Brahe (1556-1643) helped her brother Tycho Brahe predict comets and eclipses, but Tycho usually gets the credit.
Maria Winkelmann (1670-1720) discovered a comet, but her husband's name was on the report.
-----
the above is an excerpt from an essay "From martyrdom to poor Mrs. Einstein: For women, science and engineering has been -- and is -- a long, hard road" by Joanne Laucius in which she reviews the book -- The Bold and the Brave: A History of Women in Science and Engineering, a contemporary report and history -- by Monique Frize.
Laucius notes: "Frize is a scientist, so it's no surprise that she uses numbers to illuminate the modern part of the story, which has hardly been a steady upwards-and-onwards. The Montreal massacre didn't appear to immediately discourage young Canadian women from studying engineering. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of young women who enrolled in undergraduate engineering courses increased to 22 per cent from 12 per cent."
Frize is also a writing professor (or at least gets her students writing history in and history of science). Read the rest here.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Translating Genesis 1:1: Aristotle or the Big Bang?
Dr. Hugh Henry and Mr. Daniel J. Dyke, respectively a retired physicist and a professor of Old Testament, have taken on Rashi, Robert Young, and several other Bible translators. In fact, the two have taken on (what they say is) Aristotle's view of the universe and the resultant (liberal, unscientific, outdated) translation methods of the Bible.
Their essay "Translating Genesis 1:1: Aristotle or the Big Bang?" is posted as a two parter here and here.
They're claiming that "it is intellectually satisfying that modern science now affirms the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1." They're saying that "the rationale for Rashi’s own retranslation is discredited Aristotelian physics—not the opinions of his rabbinic predecessors." They're asserting that Robert "Young followed Rashi in his translation of Genesis 1:1" and speculating that "he may have been seeking to make his Young’s Literal Translation consistent with [then] contemporary science."
In contrast, Henry and Dyke like this sort of "traditional" translation as more scientific:
In other words, Henry and Dyke don't refer readers to Aristotle's Cosmos, Physics, or Metaphysics, in which he clearly outlines his cosmology against, for example, Hesiod's. Neither do Henry and Dyke discuss Hesiod's Theogony, which forms the backdrop of much of what the Greeks and the Jewish Septuagint translators worked with and against.
Moreover, Henry and Dyke quote Rashi some, but they hardly know how he so carefully works through Genesis, not following Aristotle (if working against Aristotle's sort misogyny and gynophobia -- see Suzanne's post here linking to Rashi's "feminist" commentary on Genesis 1" which is followed by notes on "Rashi's "feminist" commentary on Genesis 3").
I only have a bit more time to say a couple of more things. Then, I'd welcome anyone else's comments.
First, we'd do well to read Hesiod's Theogony when reading Moses's Genesis. The Septuagint translation (which Henry and Dyke praise ironically) seems very aware of the old Greek text. Second, Robert Alter, who by no means is following either Aristotle or Rashi (or Robert Young for that matter), produces a translation of the Hebrew that sounds very much like the non-traditional ones that Henry and Dyke are trying to disparage as neo-Aristotelian. So take a look at some of that, in light of Henry and Dykes sweeping and erroneous logic and conclusions. And then, we can avoid the sort of Aristotelian binary that Henry and Dykes propose with either "Aristotle or the Big Bang."
Here's Hesiod, then the LXX, then Alter:
Now, what do you think?
Their essay "Translating Genesis 1:1: Aristotle or the Big Bang?" is posted as a two parter here and here.
They're claiming that "it is intellectually satisfying that modern science now affirms the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1." They're saying that "the rationale for Rashi’s own retranslation is discredited Aristotelian physics—not the opinions of his rabbinic predecessors." They're asserting that Robert "Young followed Rashi in his translation of Genesis 1:1" and speculating that "he may have been seeking to make his Young’s Literal Translation consistent with [then] contemporary science."
In contrast, Henry and Dyke like this sort of "traditional" translation as more scientific:
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Young's Literal, which Henry and Dyke don't quote, goes like this:
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --But Henry and Dyke do give the following two translations and critique them:
2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
- “When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen 1:1–3, NJPS).
- “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters” (Gen 1:1–2, NRSV).
In other words, Henry and Dyke don't refer readers to Aristotle's Cosmos, Physics, or Metaphysics, in which he clearly outlines his cosmology against, for example, Hesiod's. Neither do Henry and Dyke discuss Hesiod's Theogony, which forms the backdrop of much of what the Greeks and the Jewish Septuagint translators worked with and against.
Moreover, Henry and Dyke quote Rashi some, but they hardly know how he so carefully works through Genesis, not following Aristotle (if working against Aristotle's sort misogyny and gynophobia -- see Suzanne's post here linking to Rashi's "feminist" commentary on Genesis 1" which is followed by notes on "Rashi's "feminist" commentary on Genesis 3").
I only have a bit more time to say a couple of more things. Then, I'd welcome anyone else's comments.
First, we'd do well to read Hesiod's Theogony when reading Moses's Genesis. The Septuagint translation (which Henry and Dyke praise ironically) seems very aware of the old Greek text. Second, Robert Alter, who by no means is following either Aristotle or Rashi (or Robert Young for that matter), produces a translation of the Hebrew that sounds very much like the non-traditional ones that Henry and Dyke are trying to disparage as neo-Aristotelian. So take a look at some of that, in light of Henry and Dykes sweeping and erroneous logic and conclusions. And then, we can avoid the sort of Aristotelian binary that Henry and Dykes propose with either "Aristotle or the Big Bang."
Here's Hesiod, then the LXX, then Alter:
First of all chaos [Chaos, Χάος] came into existence, thereafter however / Broad-bosomed earth [Gai', Γαῖ'] took form, the forever immovable seat of / All of the deathless gods who inhabit the heights of Olympus, / And murky Tartarus, tucked in a cleft of extensively travelled / Earth [Gai', Γαῖ'], also Eros [Ἔρος], most beautiful god among all the immortals, / Loosening limbs, dominating the hearts and the minds and the well-laid / Plans both of all the immortals and all of susceptible mankind.
--Hesiod, Theogony 116-22 (translated by Daryl Hine)
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth [Gen, Γῆν]. Yet the earth [Gen, Γῆν] was invisible [a-oratos, ἀ-όρατος] and unformed [a-kataskeuastos, ἀ-κατασκεύαστος], and darkness was over the abyss [ἀβύσσου], and a divine wind [pneuma theou, πνεῦμα θεοῦ] was being carried along over the water. And God said [eipen ho theos, εἶπεν ὁ θεός], "Let light come into being [Genetheto, Γενηθήτω]," And light came into being.
--Moses, Genesis 1:1-3, translated by unnamed Jewish translators from his Hebrew into their Hellene (further translated into English by Robert J. V. Hiebert, NETS)
When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said "Let there be light." And there was light.
--Moses, Bereishit (בְּרֵאשִׁית, "in the beginning") Genesis 1:1-3, (translated by Robert Alter)
Now, what do you think?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
If Your Body's Sexed Female, Science Really?
I was going to post on what famous scientists (i.e., powerful males) have objectively observed about females. You know, Aristotle the biologist wrote that females have fewer teeth than males, have the "virtue" more of obedience than of the normal (i.e., male) virtue of leadership, have a mutilated body as opposed to a naturally formed one (i.e., male), have no rational soul (as men have), and have no contribution to make to procreative biology (i.e., sperm, semen, and such) other than a bit of "matter." You know, Sigmund Freud the psychologist wrote that females are "mutilated and must learn to accept deformity" (i.e., their lack, what he identifies as their "Penisneid"). You wonder with me then, about Simon Baron-Cohen the biological psychologist who writes about the essential hard-wire difference between females and males in the extreme brain.
But I think what gets missed, who gets forgotten, are all the famous scientists (yes women). For starters:
Biologists:
Physicists:
Psychologists:
But I think what gets missed, who gets forgotten, are all the famous scientists (yes women). For starters:
Biologists:
B
CF | GHIJKLMN | N cont.OPSTU |
ABCDEF | F cont.GHJKLM | M cont.NOPRSVWXY |
Florence Denmark
Inez Beverly Prosser
Who else are we forgetting and who must we remember?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Aristotle Teaches Einstein
Hal got me to go with her to the public library again last night. With a Joan Didion novel and another by Joyce Carol Oates in her hands, she passed me trying to balance Alan Lightman's Einstein's Dreams in my own hands while leafing through Annie Dillard's For the Time Being. "Dad, I'm going to get some non-fiction too," she told me and ended up also with two books on mental illness, one on dianectics, one on the "science" of dreams, and a college-level introduction to psychology by "Dr. Joseph G. Johnson." Whew!
Now she'd inspired me to check out from the physics section Lightman's book Ancient Light: Our Changing View of the Universe.
I've heard and read from Lightman about how (he thinks) science writing is different from artistic writing. Doesn't that sound a little like Aristotle, who must keep such categories separate? And I've read Lightman's incredible fiction before and have discussed with him its translation into over thirty different languages. "Do you want the translators of your novels to write in the target language like scientists, Dr. Lightman, or like artists," I asked him. He then incredibly, bravely, shows that he has gone beyond Aristotle and his aristotelian logic: "The translators must be both artists and scientists."
So back to our books. I skim this morning through my daughter's intro to psychology textbook, in which Dr. Johnson begins with a history of the science. Aristotle appears early and directly influences the thinking of Thomas Aquinas and then of Rene Descartes on the mind and soul. I look now at Lightman's science book on the history of cosmology ("In memory of Rabbi James Wax of Memphis who always thought about the big picture"). Aristotle figures early, of course, and directly influences Nicholas Copernicus and then Thomas Digges and then Isaac Newton; as you shall see below and infer by the title of this post, Aristotle also influences Einstein profoundly.
The chapter ends breathlessly (as I think about Lightman's persistent Aristotelian distinction between "science writer / artist writer") with these two sentences:
Now she'd inspired me to check out from the physics section Lightman's book Ancient Light: Our Changing View of the Universe.
I've heard and read from Lightman about how (he thinks) science writing is different from artistic writing. Doesn't that sound a little like Aristotle, who must keep such categories separate? And I've read Lightman's incredible fiction before and have discussed with him its translation into over thirty different languages. "Do you want the translators of your novels to write in the target language like scientists, Dr. Lightman, or like artists," I asked him. He then incredibly, bravely, shows that he has gone beyond Aristotle and his aristotelian logic: "The translators must be both artists and scientists."
So back to our books. I skim this morning through my daughter's intro to psychology textbook, in which Dr. Johnson begins with a history of the science. Aristotle appears early and directly influences the thinking of Thomas Aquinas and then of Rene Descartes on the mind and soul. I look now at Lightman's science book on the history of cosmology ("In memory of Rabbi James Wax of Memphis who always thought about the big picture"). Aristotle figures early, of course, and directly influences Nicholas Copernicus and then Thomas Digges and then Isaac Newton; as you shall see below and infer by the title of this post, Aristotle also influences Einstein profoundly.
The chapter ends breathlessly (as I think about Lightman's persistent Aristotelian distinction between "science writer / artist writer") with these two sentences:
Whether Newton himself was more persuaded by this logical argument or by his religious beliefs, he ended up supporting the Aristotelian tradition of a cosmos without change. That tradition, unchallenged by Einstein, was not questioned until the late 1920s.
-(page 13, my emphasis)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)