Talk:Susan Greenfield

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

	This Scientists related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Categories

I am at a loss for categories to put on here. She's technically a scientist. She's not a completely wild woomeister, though that's close. We don't have a category for incompetence - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Persecution

We should mention that men also complain about imagined persecution when called out over bad science. Pointing that out doesn't make little Susie look less silly but prevents people blaming women exclusively for that type of stuff. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It struck me as a largely superfluous addition. But I do somewhat see your point. How to phrase it really concisely? - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it so it's slightly longer but better English. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A BoN sayeth:

"She used to be head of the Royal Institution, the oldest independent research body in the world"

RI was founded 1799 mostly for the promulgation of public scientific knowledge. The Royal Society was founded in 1660 and was and is far more concerned with research. ^{— Unsigned, by: 77.98.14.214 / talk / contribs} 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote

Isn't the Sarah Sands quote technically a quote mine? The article seems to be the sort of thing molehill mountaineering over sexism, and the "she isn't a genius" line seems to be more defending Greenfield based on the fact that she's just, well, a run-of-the-mill scientist rather than one of the mega-important ones like Einstein. Perhaps the defence is "your criticism of Greenfield is wrong because she's not that famous", hence the line. In the context of the article, this makes sense. (Though I did lol quite a bit over "her primary competence is the promotion of Baroness Susan Greenfield", harsh, but kinda fair) ^narchist 13:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote is pointing out an agreement that she should not be labeled as "Britain's foremost neuroscientist". I hadn't thought that the quote were a quote mine at the time I included it, and it still carries some weight. She is not some spectacular scientist worthy of praise and adoration, as she is clearly not a genius, and has no distinguished experiments to her name. I mean, placing context around the quote would do little to lessen the pain of the sharpened teeth of the criticism. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if I took the right message from it. Certainly without the context it makes it look like Sands is laying into her, but with it there seems to be a different story. I'd support inclusion of it, just wondering if anyone agreed with the idea that it's technically a "mine". ^moral 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a slight mine IMO - it's clearly not the writer's intent. Not that Sarah Sands is some genius of coherent thought, but something of an idiot herself - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)