Prof Alice Roberts attacks Dr Emma Hilton on Twitter

[CaveMum]

Another low blow from Prof Alice - attempting to dismiss Dr Hilton’s credentials as a signatory to a letter to the Times on biological sex.

Twitter thread here: twitter.com/fondofbeetles/status/1204763423013244929

Sounds about right, Arnold.

Alister Hardy's theory was what Morgan's developed from, I think, though my memory is really pretty tatty. He is an interesting character.

They do that in year 7 @Bowlofbabelfish

11 year olds are taught that in school. Perhaps Professor Roberts needs to revisit her KS3 text books?

This implication that School Science is all a load of bunk and wait til you get to Uni for the real stuff... Then presumably all that BSc stuff is guff, wait til you get to PhD level before you really understand, etc. We are the Lords of Knowledge, bow down before us.

There's an element of this in Newtonian Physics, which is 'common sense' we all learn, except that the apple doesn't fall, the space between the apple and the ground folds up, etc. ....wha???

But Chemistry and Biology are pretty solid so far as I can see, no 'forget all that periodic table guff, it's a multidimensional space...'

BOWL! Very happy to see you around here. Your insight and expertise were a huge draw for me when I first started reading this board. I've missed the perspective you bring to it all. Dare I hope you're dipping back in for a while?

(Sorry for embarrassing fangirling )

There's an element of this in Newtonian Physics, which is 'common sense' we all learn, except that the apple doesn't fall, the space between the apple and the ground folds up, etc. ....wha???

There is certainly an element of 'physics envy' amongst the 'woke' academics.

Yes, physics, even in high school, did have a tendency to teach you one thing and then the next year go, oh, see that stuff we made you memorise like the Grail - er, it wasn't true.

Which is one reason I liked it. But was a bit discombobulating.

Not sure that sub-atomic physics can really be treated as the metaphor some people want to make of it, though. In fact, I wonder if things might have got a bit muddled in recent years partly because of this type of leaping and attempt to transpose, say, very abstract concepts from physics into to the realm of philosophy and social sciences? Schrodinger's cat is neither dead nor alive, therefore we are not male or female?

I am the daughter of physicists (and granddaughter), not to mention having a physical sciences degree, so I have spent much time around physics people.

One thing that always strikes me about them is their desperate wish to find a way to put complex concepts into simple language, rather than equations, in order to share with the general public. This is in such stark contrast with the 'gender studies' brigade, who take simple concepts and dress them up in unnecessarily complex language in order to obfuscate.

Yay Bowl is back! (I hope.)

What did she say? Her Twitter account is now protected so only approved followers can see what she tweets.

Physcs teaches us that things are divided into three categories: Very Big, Very Small, and Everything Else.

We live firmly in the Everything Else zone.

@rhubarbcrumbles basically Prof Alice tried to say that Dr Hilton wasn’t a senior scientist because she is listed as working as a lab assistant at Manchester Uni right now. Dr Hilton responded to explain that yes that was the case right now because she is bridging a funding gap in her own research.

It was the sneering tone of “she’s not a REAL scientist” that everyone quite rightly took exception to, which as well as being utterly wrong was patronising and very much flew in the face of her own “humanist” ideals of “being kind” to everyone.

This implication that School Science is all a load of bunk and wait til you get to Uni for the real stuff... Then presumably all that BSc stuff is guff, wait til you get to PhD level before you really understand, etc. We are the Lords of Knowledge, bow down before us.

This is very much the attitude of people like Roberts, isn't it? It's a pretence that real, highly-educated scientists have a much more sophisticated understanding of biology than the poor fools who have only studied it at school. But you can tell it's nonsense because as soon as they start to explain it, you can see the holes in it. And then you point out the holes and they block you. That's when you know for sure that far from being far more sophisticated, their understanding is embarrassingly stupid.

What an unpleasant person she seems to be, especially for somebody who isn't a real scientist because she's a television presenter.

But did Dr Hilton claim to be a senior scientist?
Or does Dr Roberts think you're only entitled to write letters if you're senior?

Prof Alice tried to say that Dr Hilton wasn’t a senior scientist because she is listed as working as a lab assistant at Manchester Uni right now. Dr Hilton responded to explain that yes that was the case right now because she is bridging a funding gap in her own research.

Anyone who has much to do with academic research groups surely knows that this sort of discontinuity isn't uncommon. (Especially for women, though that may not be relevant in this instance).

Neither a PhD nor professorial chair are talismans you can carry unchallenged through life. Credible academics are as good as their funding track-record and their last publication. You'd think an awareness of this would keep people's conceit in check, but this profession has its fair share of delicate egos just like any other. And one surefire sign of professional insecurity is to use your status - as opposed to the debate and questioning you're paid for - to undermine less senior academics. It's a dick move (and it's one which I have to say I've more often seen practised by men).

Alice Roberts is, or was, an engaging communicator whose work I willingly admired. To see her resort to low bulling like this - particularly when she claims to have been a victim of bullying herself and at one stage had hit the glass ceiling like many other women in academia - is unexpected and sad.

These recent shenanigans on Twitter have also been incredibly childish for someone her age, not to mention unprofessional. Shrieking that something is so because 'I believe' or because 'I'm a scientist and I said so' is the quickest way to negate and undermine your own arguments. Even first-year undergraduates know this.

Very, very disappointed in her.

or is it 'talismen?' Grr. Last night was a long night ...

Another one waving madly at Bowl! I hope all is well with you, darling.

Really good to "see" you, Bowl. I trust you, Mr Bowl and young Ramekin are good!

Scrimshaw - "Not sure that sub-atomic physics can really be treated as the metaphor some people want to make of it, though. In fact, I wonder if things might have got a bit muddled in recent years partly because of this type of leaping and attempt to transpose, say, very abstract concepts from physics into to the realm of philosophy and social sciences? Schrodinger's cat is neither dead nor alive, therefore we are not male or female?"

And Arnold - "One thing that always strikes me about them is their desperate wish to find a way to put complex concepts into simple language, rather than equations, in order to share with the general public. This is in such stark contrast with the 'gender studies' brigade, who take simple concepts and dress them up in unnecessarily complex language in order to obfuscate."

As a physicist (who also spent time in an arts faculty at one point) - both of these observations are spot on.

@ErrolTheDragon the letter that Dr Hilton was a signatory to was promoted as a letter from senior scientists and published in The Times.

The record of "Senior" sceintists is not always an edifying one: Watson and Crick broke into Rosy Franklin's lab and stole her photo. Darwin finally published to stop the non-Oxbridge oik Wallace from getting the credit. Sir Cyril Burt invented a fictional research assistant who managed to find dozens of identical twins separted at birth. Etc.

I like that categorisation.

• comment responding to Mockers' categorisation from about six hours ago, sorry, am in a bit of a time lag here.