There has been some controversy about the 2016 NSF-funded paper “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research” (see here for a detailed analysis). The paper refers, inter alia, to the Forbes/Tyndall debate of the century before last (although I believe it is misinterpreting that saga). But, interesting as that episode was in the history of science, it has little to say about the epistemology of modern glaciology. In the 1800s, observing glaciers required extensive (perhaps even “heroic”) mountain climbing. Today, remote sensing methods and computer models are also important, and we understand glaciers much better than either Forbes or Tyndall did.
I don’t think that the gender studies lens adds anything to our understanding of glaciers. And I suspect that Elisabeth Isaksson, Moira Dunbar, Helen Fricker, Julie Palais, Kumiko Goto-Azuma, or Jemma Wadham would not think so either. Nor are race relations particularly important in studying ice. And as to “alternative ways of knowing,” I would prefer to stick with the scientific method – it’s worked very well so far (didn’t we just have a march against “alternative facts”?). Indeed, to subordinate science to the modern politicised humanities would be to abandon the concept of scientific truth, and to make it impossible to gain widespread agreement on the crises currently facing humanity.
On 26 May 1667, Abraham de Moivre was born. This French mathematician gave us, inter alia, the formula named after him:
De Moivre was born to French Protestant parents. When the Edict of Nantes was revoked, he was imprisoned for his beliefs for several years, after which he was allowed to leave for England. De Moivre made important contributions to probability theory, and was a pioneer of analytic geometry. Sadly, he was unable to get a university position in England, and he died in poverty.
Across the world, solar car teams continue to prepare for the 2017 World Solar Challenge, turning dreams into functioning vehicles (Instagram memories from Michigan, Belgium, Jönköping, Nuon, Lodz, and me). Meanwhile, the road from Darwin to Adelaide is waiting.
Who’s your local team?
Lately I’ve been exploring demographic and social data, including looking at the Australian data in the World Values Survey. Of particular interest are data on self-reported happiness. Among women, financial stress and poor health contribute to unhappiness, as might be expected. Socially conservative women report being happier, and single women report being less happy. Finally, women who attend religious services once per week or once per month are happier than those who do not attend religious services, or those who attend religious services more than once per week. This is broadly consistent with literature on the effects of religion on mental health.
Among men, financial stress and poor health act in the same way as for women. In terms of marital status, however, it is separated men who are the least happy. Male happiness is also closely tied to employment status, with unemployed (and, to a lesser extent, self-employed) men reporting more unhappiness.
Lately I’ve been exploring demographic data related to women’s health. Among other things, this involved looking at the Australian data in the World Values Survey, which includes a self-reported measure of health. For women, this depends on a number of other variables, including age:
For men, the age effect is weaker:
Presumably, this is because male health problems are more likely to be fatal, which is why there is an excess of women amongst the elderly, as indicated by Australian census data:
Above, the calendar for June (click for hi-res image). See more calendars here.