presents the concept of sad facts, or les faits de la vie, what he is really talking about are sad paradigms, sad ways of viewing the world, or at least parts of it.
He is right in saying that there are dogmas to strict liberal thought, such as refusing to ever accept the notion that perhaps men and women are fundamentally different... or is he? Certainly if you were to point out that men are often not as detail-oriented as women, one may agree. But it is true that if you were to suggest that perhaps women are bad at math, you would be immediately dismissed, even if you had evidence to back up your paradigm.
It turns out, however, that Dr. Prager has no evidence of this. Statistically there are less women in computer science, math and engineering, however current statistics do not account for cultural norms. While Dr. Prager may insist that cultural norms have no affect, I think it more likely that he would say these norms exist for a reason, why disturb a social structure that has proven to be so perfect in episodes of Leave it to Beaver? Regardless of whether form followed function, or vice versa, any evidence supporting either hypothesis is incomplete. Thus, if we are to approach the discussion rationally, as Dr. Prager and intellectual conservatives always insist that they are, they must accept that there is a possibility that either paradigm is equally valid until we are better able to exam objectively the effect of society on women's decision to pursue engineering, or men's attention to detail, etc.
This same rigorous methodology is absent in each of Dr. Prager's opinion-based "sad facts." However, pointing out that the majority of violent crime in America is committed by black males, specifically young black males, has nothing to do with paradigm. In fact, this would be more akin to stating that less than a quarter of engineers in the US are women (http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=112). That would be a true statement, but neither of these statements by themselves make the point that Dennis is trying to make. When seen this way, it is not the rejection of sad facts that he is trying to point out, but actually the refusal to accept sad facts as an inherent state of the world. While Dr. Prager may see these statistics and say "ah, these reinforce my view of the world. Clearly women do not want to be engineers, and young black men are more agressive than their Caucasian counterparts." A liberal, or perhaps we should call them problem-solvers, would look at these statistics and think "what reasons might cause these inequities? Is it possible that the cause could be something besides the assumption that despite being nearly genetically identical, men and women,
He is right in saying that there are dogmas to strict liberal thought, such as refusing to ever accept the notion that perhaps men and women are fundamentally different... or is he? Certainly if you were to point out that men are often not as detail-oriented as women, one may agree. But it is true that if you were to suggest that perhaps women are bad at math, you would be immediately dismissed, even if you had evidence to back up your paradigm.
It turns out, however, that Dr. Prager has no evidence of this. Statistically there are less women in computer science, math and engineering, however current statistics do not account for cultural norms. While Dr. Prager may insist that cultural norms have no affect, I think it more likely that he would say these norms exist for a reason, why disturb a social structure that has proven to be so perfect in episodes of Leave it to Beaver? Regardless of whether form followed function, or vice versa, any evidence supporting either hypothesis is incomplete. Thus, if we are to approach the discussion rationally, as Dr. Prager and intellectual conservatives always insist that they are, they must accept that there is a possibility that either paradigm is equally valid until we are better able to exam objectively the effect of society on women's decision to pursue engineering, or men's attention to detail, etc.
This same rigorous methodology is absent in each of Dr. Prager's opinion-based "sad facts." However, pointing out that the majority of violent crime in America is committed by black males, specifically young black males, has nothing to do with paradigm. In fact, this would be more akin to stating that less than a quarter of engineers in the US are women (http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=112). That would be a true statement, but neither of these statements by themselves make the point that Dennis is trying to make. When seen this way, it is not the rejection of sad facts that he is trying to point out, but actually the refusal to accept sad facts as an inherent state of the world. While Dr. Prager may see these statistics and say "ah, these reinforce my view of the world. Clearly women do not want to be engineers, and young black men are more agressive than their Caucasian counterparts." A liberal, or perhaps we should call them problem-solvers, would look at these statistics and think "what reasons might cause these inequities? Is it possible that the cause could be something besides the assumption that despite being nearly genetically identical, men and women,
