For the first time ever, I read some of the other letters before writing this (since I wasn't expecting to write one).

The letter titled "Where's the science?" reminds me that I had the same thought about a week ago. ('S funny -- I've been reading Salon for over six months, I'm a scientist, and it hadn't occurred to me before last week.)

I don't know what the editors were thinking, of course. But science is so very important to understanding and evalutating what's going on in the world.

Even much science that's not immediately applicable to understanding the rest of the world is valuable. Learning about the discovery of a new fish, a new mathematical insight re four-dimensional space, a new grasp of how rivers evolve, a new theory about how the universe formed -- this kind of thing expands our horizons and helps deliver us from our petty and mundane concerns by putting ourselves in perspective.

Page Rockwell writes in a Feb. 8, 2006 Broasheet piece:

"Tuesday was the anniversary of Harvard prez Larry Summers' infamous speculation that the lack of women in high-level math and science positions might be due to innate differences between the sexes."

Actually that was only one of three reasons he offered as *possible* *partial* explanations for the dearth of women in the highest levels of academia in some sciences and especially mathematics:

1. Prejudice against women;

2. Possible biological differences, causing women to be, statistically, less likely to excel at the highest levels of academic mathematics.

3. Greater likelihood that women are trying to balance a career with taking care of their children at home.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

One odd thing is that the Tuesday before Feb. 8 was Feb. 7, 2006. But Summers presented his controversial remarks on Jan. 14, 2005.

For the transcript, see http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html .

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course Page Rockwell is right. Any attempt to explain reality using rational explanations would contravene beliefs that many are holding as axioms, so the rational explanations can't possibly be right; furthermore they must necessarily stem from misogynist prejudice.

It's of course irrelevant that Summers mentioned reasons 1. and 3. above, for which there exists ample empirical evidence. And of course the fact that males and females have differently-designed physical bodies, implying a certain division of labor in prehistoric times, cannot possibly suggest that different mental strengths between the sexes might have optimized the performance of these inferred distinct tasks.

No, men and women are exactly equal in their mental abilities, irrespective of established science demonstrating that our brains tend to have different architectures, and different patterns of use.

Many differences between the sexes are clearly cultural -- that's be shown decisively. But why stop with facts? It must *all* be purely cultural. The heck with research showing that even newborns, untouched by culture, react to stimuli differently according to sex (statistically).

Remember: If it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, it must be wrong.