Unknown Speaker 00:14 And I'd like to start by introducing to first Unknown Speaker 00:21 introducing a Unknown Speaker 00:22 new program and it's a new program that allows undergraduate limited select few to actually do any case study very directly with a new project. Unknown Speaker 00:51 Elizabeth was one of our centennial scholars and actually be talk that we're going to give today comes out of that Elizabeth is actually fortunate enough to have two buttons instead of one. Timer. Katherine, who was running around, organizing is also one of his advisors. She's a social historian and director. And Assistant Professor of Economics Department, my research is only Elizabeth actually started out thinking of majoring in physics and then move on to study. Unknown Speaker 01:42 So basically, she's doing an interdisciplinary project, which involves both things. Most specific physics actually, Unknown Speaker 01:52 you'll notice that our topic, we're going to be concentrating very much on the hard sciences, which is something that we feel in the past has been very machine collected, chemists critiques and I should also mention that Unknown Speaker 02:10 probably many of you realize that Unknown Speaker 02:13 one of the wonderful things about a conference is actually to sit down and write out the work that you can Unknown Speaker 02:20 produce. And it gives you that type of discipline. So Elizabeth, and I actually sat down and wrote up the manuscript, and now it's too irresistible not to sit and read it and simply talking about it, it's also I feel kind of important for this particular talk, because there's so very much that we have to cover, we're going to be talking about science and using the language of science and talking about science. So I have to first I noticed that anybody knows any physics in this audience. And so first, we have to confirm some Unknown Speaker 02:57 kind of physics background and then move on to Unknown Speaker 03:01 others and so that we don't wander off topic or Unknown Speaker 03:07 make something that's already gone Unknown Speaker 03:08 even longer. We felt that it was best to actually work with. So I'm Unknown Speaker 03:19 actually in keeping with my philosophy. When we have a captive audience, make sure that you use them to sit and listen. I want to start by telling a joke about a scientist who was looking across and scientist takes the frog and puts it down on a table and draws a story on it and says, jump jump. The scientists measures the distance from Unknown Speaker 03:53 the starting line for the Unknown Speaker 03:54 driver's license down in the province moved back to the starting line, and one of its legs is jump broad jump. Of course, the five isn't doing well. But nonetheless, the scientists measures the distance from the starting line after frog Unknown Speaker 04:14 where it's done level. Unknown Speaker 04:18 Projects with factories very annoyed at a second. Don't frog jump frog jumps right this breaks down the decision to close it back to the starting line Unknown Speaker 04:29 and then he was disturbed. Unknown Speaker 04:32 General scientist says jump frog jump a little bit. Scientist measures the distance again write it down and finally takes the frog back to the starting line and cuts off his fourth leg and says Unknown Speaker 04:49 science is fixed. This is actually Unknown Speaker 04:54 connected to the call. I like to just call you Little bit about format on first, Elizabeth is going to present some of the issues. I'm going to then teach you all physics components. And then attempt to, and then attempt to tie in addressing the issues that Elizabeth brings to the fore for us and show how I use the language of physics that I've just presented to address these issues. And finally listening for some of them show why he came up with this particular Unknown Speaker 05:35 way of looking at. Unknown Speaker 05:41 I just like to add my display of well, apologize. Just try to be clear. Increasing literature on the social construction of science has begun to critique the way science is presented today started exposing how scientists really, although much of his literature is not explicitly feminist, it serves to pave the way to the first exercise of physics, but I will the steps are not representative of the accepted philosophy of the field. However, they do come from inside the discipline, both gel holding and energy great practices. In the chapter, Joe Holmes broke his scientific imagination. He has a chapter which describes two groups that exemplified extreme views on science. On the one end of the spectrum, are those he calls the guy who says at the design of one irrational wealth reveler, that he seems are contemptuous of conventional rationality and are convinced that science as it stands today produces evil results. At the other end are the people who believe in objective rationality. And besides a strictly logical and mathematical, these hobbies, the Apollonius after all, God is civilization. The way in which the afternoons do science is often the way in which science is presented to the world. Scientists themselves encourage this as they instruct their students to remove themselves from their work in order to be objective, and proceed in a logical manner until the truth appears for the calculation. However, more in depth look at many of the great discoveries in science use this public presentation to be quite different from private science or what really goes on in the lab. Only gives a good example of this, when a Miko fairly was experimenting with the effect of using a moderator to slow down neutrons he first thought of using light. However, as he said, I was very dissatisfied with something I tried every excuse to postpone put a piece of lead in its place. When finally some reluctance I was going to finish with this place. I said to myself, you know, I do not want this piece of lead here. What I want is it was just like that, with no advance warning, no conscious prior and I immediately took some odd piece of character and placement where the lead lead was and if you could carry on had the desired effect of slowing down neutrality, which was essential to continue that search. Despite this insightful discovery, however, phrase ironic interpretation of his own method is present in his claim that scientists should proceed according to the rules, which we find the traditional setup theory hypothesis experiment, with no real intuitive perception. Andrew Pickering in constructing Park offers another insider's view on the nature of the scientific process. He explains the research tradition of the high energy physics by this group, but slogan opportunities in the economy. Because the research is dependent on the opportunity science scientists have available for access to intellectual and physical resources. Because analysis of scientific process is not only determined by the fact that research is structured by access to resources, effect, which many scientists could accept, as a much more radical proposal, because if there is an interaction between natural phenomena an experiment needs to generate, in other words, what the theory what here is chosen, will determine the experiment which affects the data gathered, which in turn determines the validity of the field. As he puts it, when you speak of a symbiosis between natural phenomena and the techniques in production, when each confers legitimacy on the other, such as symbiosis is a far cry from the antagonist, having a sick idea of experiments as an independent absolute part of the group's analysis of the scientific process, found in the higher energy physics indicates that objective rationality cannot drive some interesting discovery, which is context specific. Can you tell me about nutrition? They should not apply imply, however, that the meaning of science should take precedence besides cannot only be deducted and if Explain to the processes, neither extreme fatalities. Everyone talks color judgment science tries to avoid both pitfalls as she continues to attempt to documenting the cultural and psychological basis. She did not want feminists who reject science altogether or demanded the completely revise for as she points out, there is no denying that science works. But she struggles to that. Although she addresses the men of administration and the dominance of science, there certainly are women who claim their model of objectivity for themselves, and struggle against any notion that gender could be. Unknown Speaker 10:37 Killed color indicates the gender has great relevance in the development of science and actually documents the influence of the psychology and culture. In order to remedy the bias of science color students clear. However, the new model she comes up with indicates that she has not been able to completely reject the other camp. She puts forward a new scientific process based on his studies of Barbara McClintock, which involves, quote, listening to the material. This attempt reveals her athletic tendencies for the client that there can only be one correct interpretation of the data. The data which it will reveal is only the Scientist this is hard enough, and I do which corresponds to the Apollonian search for objective rationality. However, this goes against what we have discovered so far about the effective scientist. She claims that a feminist analysis helps you to be more objective evaluation of science, to destroy struggle to establish objectivity. Being objective is feasible and desirable. Because other clients along with holding Pickering are to be believed that it is impossible to divorce science from the scientists or to be objective. In her attempt to say the science she sees is working, she says. So we are seeing that the employee centric basis of science, we are left seeing the underside the basics of science, without knowing how else to approach it and without a scientific process, undistorted by claims to objectivity. Well, we would like to propose as a perspective, which lies somewhere in between the guidances. And in order to do that, we will introduce a language for teachers to be instrumental in guiding our thoughts on making those aspects of science which are vital, and rejecting those that are not in doing so not only can you feel that the scientific process is being more honestly represented, represented. But furthermore, we see this as a window through which to communicate the excitement and creative aspects of science to community that we feel have previously neglected science as a career, large, important cell. Unknown Speaker 12:42 So I'm going to start out by giving some background as far as physics goes. Unknown Speaker 12:49 And I'd like to remind you that Unknown Speaker 12:53 you should be cautioned that I'm going to be using physics in Unknown Speaker 12:55 two different contexts. One is kind of tribal language and the other is actually Unknown Speaker 13:01 so so that you can understand our language. I'm not just like the physics and I have to start with that device. Isaac Newton was born in 1654, the same year that Galileo died, meeting, a temperamental and neurotic character was the unsuspecting profit center fulfill the scientific promise, laws of physics for the realization of human faith in the orderliness of nature. All physics was summarized in a single equation F equals MA force equals mass times acceleration. The implications of this equation which are found in far reaching, given the position and velocity of a particle with mass and given time and the forces acting on this particle, the entire future and past of the particle are determined. The class popularize the power of Newton's laws by introducing the notion of the demon, who was called the universe in some given time, write down a position of velocity of all particles, frozen in just a moment. Then using F equals MA, the G the demon could know both the past and future of universe. This concept of determinism pictured the world as a gigantic clockwork, wound up by its makers equals zero and left to unfold in a predictable fashion for all eternity according to determinism is the first ingredient of classical Newtonian physics. The other components was revealed not true in specific mathematical equation, but rather Newton's own personal assessment of the scientific process. As you put it each day, no hypothesis that is, in order to do good science, one must be an objective observer of nature uninfluenced by personal bias, together, determinism and objectivity produced a powerful vision which became so well integrated into the general worldview, that it's influenced us not to deviate into the domain of science. It's Alvin Toffler puts it there. An image of a simple uniform mechanical universe not only reshaped the development of science, it stood over to many other fields. It influenced the framers of the American Constitution to create a machine for governing its checks and balances, looking like parts of a clock Metternich, where he wrote a court to create his balancing power in Europe carry to copyable classes writings in his baggage, and is not expressed at Factory civilization with its vast piping machines. Its growth industries, such as seals textile auto see nearly to confirm the image of the universe as an engineers paperclip. Speaking more generally, to disprove basic influence and science on our worldview, Alfred North Whitehead explained, this five growth of science has practically recovered our mentality so that the modes of thought which in former times were exceptional, are now widely spread throughout the educated world. The new mentality is more important even than the new technology, it has altered the metaphysical presuppositions and imaginative contents of our minds. In the world of physics, Newtonian vision remains the uncontested understanding of the physical universe until the turn of the century. However, as will be discussed later, Newton's influence in other areas of intellectual endeavor continues to this day by virtue of its own inertia. Unknown Speaker 16:27 The two great scientific revolutions of the 20th century had very different origins. Well, Einstein's theory of special relativity was theoretically motivated. Quantum mechanics required experimental sophistication and expertise necessary to probe the world with the reason why quantum understanding of nature lay dormant and unsuspecting until recent times, but ultimately quite loosely broken the imposing and seemingly secure structure of employees because it can be understood in the following way. Suppose after being presented with water bones, you were ushered into a dark, large but nearly barren room, and asked to locate the position of a brand new Mercedes sports car, which was to the reward for the successful completion of a special solution is obvious. You simply turn on the water hose and scan the room until the intense water pressure which gush forth from the most splattered back again, is indicating the exact location of gratulations. Now suppose you were given the opportunity to repeat this game using your trusty water hose. But this time instead of the sports car, your objective was to located on the right. In the true spirit of TV game shows you were told that you can quit at this point and drive home to your New York State. Or you could go to both the ring in the car with the caveat that if you failed, you would forfeit everything. What will your decision, a little bit of thought will reveal the fact that to continue with the playing into the truck. Just say strategy would obviously not work. In this case, it's in the process of trying to determine the position of the rain, the force of the stream of water, we continually change his location. But if you were smart, if you thought that you're being clever, you would ask for water pressure will be turned down. The result of that is that there isn't going to be enough force to let the water come splashing back at you. And since you're serving as the protector, you wouldn't be able to get around it that way. So this example that illustrates how a consideration of the size of the object under investigation points to unnecessary reexamination of the measurement process itself. Until physicists encountered the atomic domain it was not obvious if such an assessment was even necessary. However, it was clear on an atomic level that the experimenter directly influences the outcome of the experiment. And this new understanding found its expression to two major tenants of quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle enforced principle of complementarity. The essential idea behind the uncertainty principle is that not only is it not possible to continuously reduce the effect of the scientist on the experiment, by using better and better equipment, but that it is not impossible to determine the extent of this effect so that it can be compensated for theoretically In other words, you're stuck in this situation. The physicist therefore, cannot make an exact determination of the position and velocity of a particle given client, which means that nature at its most fundamental level is not deterministic. The principle of complementarity is also concerned with fundamental experimental limitations. We work fundamentals use to make it clear that the issues discussed are issues of principle not limitations of technology. An example with the water close depending upon the water pressure being used, it was impossible to determine velocity is the rate or its position. That is the rate would remain stationary, if you use just a little bit of water pressure. Which means that the rate would have a velocity of zero. But on the other hand, you wouldn't know anything about its location as we just discussed. On the alternative is to use a higher water pressure. And in that case, for an instant, you could determine its location, but then you would send it off with some indeterminate philosophy. physicists use the notion of complementarity when referring to situations where it's necessary to choose one of two mutually exclusive alternatives. So it's a quite different usage than common sense the possibility of objective observation is excluded in the common world as a matter of principle, this acknowledgement of the influence of the general experiment is often referred to as observer created reality which will Unknown Speaker 21:07 bring questions this is this part of that is very important. So could you back up? Sorry, Unknown Speaker 21:21 I was like I was trying to get down that when the water hose example. All right, I feel there. Okay. Unknown Speaker 21:30 In terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, of complementarity, and we talked about it, so that so you either have a choice of trying to determine its position very well, what you could do is use a very high water pressure and you've gotten position for that given instance. But at the cost of not knowing anything about its philosophy. The other thing that you can do is use a very low water pressure. And then you won't move away hardly at all to know when it's velocity to zero. But then you don't know anything about his position, because the method of detection that we're using is like water actually splashes back. So low water pressure. So the uncertainty principle of complementarity are the same thing. They're basically two different businesses way of expressing the same thing. The Heisenberg was just showing you that there's no way to, according to Newton's laws, I mean, both the position and the velocity at a given moment, according to the uncertainty principle, I can't know both its position, velocity and temperature. So I can't get a hold of the initial conditions and so therefore, I. Unknown Speaker 22:57 Actually, that's a solid point. So to summarize, the classical or Newtonian notions of determinism and objectivity need to be revised. Not for now. Notice that if determinism were completely discarded, and we'll be left with the task of redefining science itself, since it would be devoid of any predictive power. This turns out not to be necessary, but I'm not going to present the details here. Let me just say that, according to quantum reality, physicists understand quantum realities being statistical and not certain. That is, while it is impossible to predict the outcome of an individual measurement, since precise individual measurements are meaningless, it is possible to predict a statistical distribution of the series of questions okay. In other words, it is possible to predict the probability for a given outcome. Similarly, objectivity is not discarded in favor of subjectivity. While it is true, the quantum reality is in part an observer created reality. Once a given experimental setup is chosen, any two scientists performing the same set of measurements will get the same data ie those that have been statistically predicted as the outcome. So Newton's equations have not been thrown out and and scientists are left with nothing they have Schrodinger equation instead and Schrodinger equation now predicts the probabilities instead of the exact exact determination. Unknown Speaker 24:37 So, okay, so I was talking about also that objectivity is not discarded in favor of subjectivity, because there is still reproducibility, which is actually the cornerstones. The fact that that even though the observer influences the outcome of the experiment, any two scientists performing the same experiment Math in the same way will collect the same set of data, interpretations of that data. Alright, hence science is not reduced to pure Well, it's because it's not objective, but neither is it such a more subtle but related point about observer created reality that is that it is not constructed without any regard for the underlying physical world. Rather, although human intention influences the structure because of the world, find reality also has things like electrons, and hence our understanding of nature comes from the interaction between the observer and the observer. Unknown Speaker 25:45 As a physicist, I feel it is my responsibility to question you not only about the subtleties of quantum mechanics, as I have just tried to allude to the fact that they are not, it's not as simple of a theory. But also about I want to also caution you about the application of the philosophical implications in quantum mechanics, other areas of thought. Many of you are probably aware of the application of these ideas to everything from justifying Eastern mysticism, to the future of the feminist movement, as well as working in quantum theory is to serve as a guide to our thinking instead of a Newtonian ideology, then it must be done with the care that the complexity and subtleness of the theory it should be emphasized that the ideas which I am about to present are not suggesting, and the idea that I'm about to present we're not suggesting that scientific methodology necessarily needs to be revised as a result of the new teachings. But rather, that this offers a way of thinking about things called a lens, or vantage point or even a language, which enables us to examine the issues in different light. With this caveat in mind, I would now like to present I teach a course at Barnard, which is intended for an audience of non scientists. Unknown Speaker 27:18 in gaming, okay, it is a sampler of both classical and modern physics with an emphasis on the development of ideas. In order to help the students assimilate the concepts of quantum mechanics, and also to heighten their awareness of the resonating discourse between science and worldview. I asked them to write a term paper paper, which I would now like to describe as a way of introducing accounts. As I've already mentioned, Newtonian physics was such a powerful vision that its philosophical implications involving determinism and objectivity. were applied to such diverse fields of tumor, human endeavor, as political theory, psychology, art and religion to mention but a few to students are asked to select the topic of your own choosing and as a preliminary consideration, to point out the ways in which their topic has been influenced by a Newtonian view. The main focus of the paper is then to contemplate the effects which would be expected if it's a classical perspective were replaced by quantum mechanical viewpoint. And considering an example to illustrate this assignment, I chose scientific process and the topic I suggested to them that I would then structure the paper and call it addressing the issue of scientific process Isaac Newton himself wrote the following excerpt in the this analysis consists in making experiments and observations and drawing general conclusions from them by induction, and admitting No objections against the conclusions but such as are taken from experiments or other certain truths or hypotheses are not to be regarded in any experimental philosophy. By this way of analysis, we may proceed from compounds to ingredients and promotions to the forces producing them and in general from effects to their causes to more general ones. So, the argument ends in the most general this is the method of analysis and synthesis consists in assuming of causes discovered and established as principles and by then explaining the phenomena proceeding from them, including the X connections. Obviously, According to Newton, the process of doing science is both deterministic and objective. The question which needs to be addressed is how are we to understand scientific process using quantum mechanics as a philosophical basis? This is the question I would like to answer. The scientific process can no longer be seen as a determinist the unfolding of the truth. Nor does it make any sense for the scientists to say objectivity. Rather doing science is to be seen as an interaction between nature and the scientists to quote yields for one of the founders of quantum theory. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about. Notice that even though the specter of objectivity has been banished, reproducibility the fundamental principle of science remains intact. Furthermore, one must now admits complementary understandings of nature, rather than a given truth which needs to be uncovered. In his seminal book constructing quarks, Andrew Pickering presents a non traditional approach to understanding the history of elementary particle physics, which can be seen as a step towards a quantum interpretation of scientific process. He presents a sociological history of this field, which dares to suggest that scientists are not passively blurred. This is a quote he suggests, quote that scientists are not passive observers and recorders of nature, but actor but active constructors of the world of natural phenomena, through a social symbiosis of experimental and theoretical practice. Close as I struggled from very important science. paper it says, scientists are not passive observers and reporters of nature but active constructors is a world of natural phenomena through a social symbiosis of experimental and theoretical practice. This type of analysis paves the way for appreciating the radical possibility that science can branch off in different directions in a manner consistent with existing No. Keeping in mind that science is a community endeavor, it is not difficult to see how the scenario might be actually, I conclude with a quote from pickerings book which illustrates the dynamics of scientific process. Suppose that a group of experimenter sets out to investigate some facet of the phenomena whose existence is taken by the scientific community to be well established. Suppose further that when the experimenters analysis Unknown Speaker 32:20 to when the experimenters analyze their data, they find that the results do not conform to prior expectations. There have been faced with one of the problems of scientific judgment noted above that of the potential fail ability of experiments, have they discovered something new about the world? Or is it something amiss with their performance or interpretation of the experiment? From an examination of the details of experiment alone, it is impossible to understand to answer this question. However through however, thorough however thorough the experimenters has been the possibility of undetected or remains. Now suppose that a fear centers, he declares that the experimenters findings are not unsuspected. They are the manifestation of some novel phenomenon which has a central position in his latest theory. This creates a new set of options for research practice. First, by identifying the unexpected findings with an attribute of nature rather than with the possible inadequacy of a particular experiment. It points the way forward for further experimental investigation. And secondly, since a new phenomena is conceptualized within a theoretical framework, the field is open for viewers to elaborate further original proposal. Suppose that the second generation of experiments is performed. One possibility would be that the experiments do not again show you the same fork in the data or whatever and that is dismissed. Another possibility is that these experiments do find traces which conform in some degree with expectations deriving from the new theory. In this case, one would expect scientific realism to begin to take the new phenomenon would be seen as a real attribute of nature. The original experiment would be regarded as a genuine discovery and the initial theoretical conjecture would you see as a genuine basis for the explanation of what had been observed. Unknown Speaker 34:19 The quantum mechanical view changes the presentation of physics from a logically objective process process which could be best done by robots to a creative venture that requires the participation of many people, as women have been traditionally excluded from the community a physicist, physics as a discipline has lost from the nonpartisan participation of such a diverse group. The inclusion of women who have been socialized to look at things differently, could provide students with a new perspective that would help reveal complementary aspects of material understanding. In order to attract more limited physics, it should be presented for what it is by exposing this patient between public and private science. This will make physics more attractive and approachable, as it clarifies the fact that physics, like so many other disciplines is dependent Unknown Speaker 35:09 on the individual creativity Unknown Speaker 35:10 and its practice. Unknown Speaker 35:13 And advantage to this particular Unknown Speaker 35:15 presentation of physics is that it does not demand the rejection of the science of this, or the current community of physicists, before any constructive work is done. Instead, it offers a perspective midway between intuitive faith and objective Apollonius that can function within science as a self contained. Unknown Speaker 35:42 There any questions? Unknown Speaker 35:45 Is it clear whether Unknown Speaker 35:48 use elaborate a little bit on how individuals pay to be willing does not get paid, really give more examples of how, say I would go back in terms of just looking at? Well, Unknown Speaker 36:07 one example that Elizabeth already gave basically, was Burmese experience. I don't want to get into stereotypes of the way a woman would proceed as opposed to totally, but I want to say that different people to bring their own backgrounds to science and science is a very creative process. Somebody else might not have use character, somebody else might have used some other material which would not have slowed down neutrons. Nuclear Fission did not have been understood at that point. Unknown Speaker 36:49 Maria Mitchell used a baby's hair when she's wearing it. Unknown Speaker 37:00 That's a good example. Because it points out, it's Unknown Speaker 37:02 not necessarily because you expose your babies, it doesn't mean she thought that didn't work so Unknown Speaker 37:08 well. But she had exposure to different Unknown Speaker 37:11 methods, I wish she would have thought of a baby's hair just because she happened to have more contact with babies say when another scientist doesn't mean that she has. So he thought differently. But because of the position, he had access to different materials, what she would think of different ways of solving. Unknown Speaker 37:29 One point that I think needs to be emphasized a little bit more maybe that he can get across because the fact that that there is a difference between public and private science, the way that science is presented is very often different from the way that the scientists actually experienced this. And basically, what we're proposing is that that it would be much healthier for the scientific community to publicize what it does and the way that it does things. And in so doing, probably actually encourage a lot more women to Unknown Speaker 38:07 participate in this type of creative endeavor. That's Unknown Speaker 38:14 a good example, which is also important spoke, which is an isolated incident, came up with the term, which is that these old idea of the effect with the sort of data he was looking for, and it's obviously we go through this journals that he picked up on data that did work. But just because he had some sort of that the Unknown Speaker 38:38 charges contest, this is Millikan oil drop experiment, for which he actually won the Nobel Prize in Physics, he showed that charge is always an integer, multiple recharging electrons. And it turns out that in looking in actually examining milligrams notebooks, they found that there, he took hundreds and hundreds of sets of data, and he circled certain ones and said, publish this. Don't this looks horrible. don't publish this publish this one. And you might even you might think, Oh, that's really cheating. And that's what you're told not to do in high school, you're not supposed to fudge the data, but a scientist knows that your intuition about scientific phenomena just gonna be familiar hourly, is very, very important. And know that you know, there could be dust on the particle which was, you know, using a Google oil droplets and Okay, leptons just just does even when influence the outcome, and so he was insightful enough about what he was doing. That's another interpretation to actually know which of the data to include him. What Unknown Speaker 39:48 are you talking about? Quantum Theory as you guys are thinking? And you said that there's no details? No, definitely. Unknown Speaker 39:57 In terms of like in terms of it reserves, Unknown Speaker 40:00 reproducibility and company Unknown Speaker 40:08 there are a few things that are completed. Unknown Speaker 40:14 First of all, I just want to say it's clear that although there are one mechanics does not allow the same determinism that are Newtonian mechanics, determinism is not thrown out the window. What is still predictable to the physicist is probabilities. Now, not the outcome was given. But you can predict the problem. And the other day attended a classical mechanics was objectivity. I want to make it very clear that objectivity is not replaced by subjects that is a result of this observer creating reality. Because what is preserved is reproducibility, it's the fact that there are still things out there, I mean, I can't measure the mass of an electron to be anything I feel like if you can say what it is, I can say what it is, and always will confirm with it and everybody can have their opinion. So basically, what happens with objectivity is, although it does get revised, because it says that the experimenter influences the outcome of the experiment, there is this interaction now, between nature and the experiment. mean by complementarity is that there are different visions, so different understandings of reality, which are mutually exclusive. Because in the example, with the Mercedes Benz and the diamond earring, I was trying to point out that the position or the velocity could be competitive. So position and velocity are then complimentary, oh, I do have a there's a nice pictorial representation of complementarity, which is that you're I'm sure you're all familiar with this picture, you can either see this as a vase or as two profiles, but not both at the same time. So these are complementary rates. So complementarity that actually has this notion of mutually exclusive. So Unknown Speaker 42:21 to fix the complementary variables, but what are your complimentary here in this country has to be an old question, but what are your example of complementary variables in terms of those insights? Unknown Speaker 42:38 I can agree that it's a little too little. I mean, basically, what we're saying is that we're basically trying to give a different perspective, understanding scientific process, and we're suggesting the fact that if the observer does influence the outcome of the experiment, and when we should appreciate that in terms of scientific processes as well, then it's it follows basically that you can understand different data, for instance, in complementary ways. Maybe complementarity is isn't the best phrase to use about that I can have different interpretations of the data, which are consistent with existing knowledge and are mutually exclusive at the same time. Right, and then I could do Further experimentation and further elaboration of theory in order to see one of those water. But I think Pickering actually gives a lot of very specific examples. Unfortunately, I can go a little bit too sophisticated to go into the general audience. But he really points out the fact that especially in the high energy physics community, which is a very large scale investigation, when high energy experimentalist do an experiment, there are hundreds of people involved because a very large amount of money and you're talking to millions of dollars, and so therefore not all different avenues get explored certain possibilities, certain interpretations get pursued and others get left by the wayside. Unknown Speaker 44:32 I don't mean to put you up against the wall at all, but to what extent like is what you're talking about descriptive of the way things work, or prescriptive? Yeah. Unknown Speaker 44:49 I think that I think it depends on who you're talking to. I think that there are some scientists We'd say there's nothing new in what you're presenting here. Because it's obvious to us that science is a very creative process, it's obvious to me that I bring my own personal biases into experiment. So to some scientists, I think this would be a very natural interpretation. To others, I think it'd be extremely radical. I think that they would be very rejecting these ideas. And they say, there's an underlying reality out there. And if you're a good scientist, then you keep your biases away from the situation. And you just go out there and you pursue things. And eventually, the truth will be uncovered, especially since it's done in a community. There's this belief that there's a self healing mechanism, rather than different branches of interpretation going off in different directions, right. And then for awhile, you know, there might be a lot of experiments in this particular going leading along this particular branch. And then, since there's a lot of experimental data theorists start working along that branch. And then since there's all these theories, experimentalist keep doing different, different experiments along that branch. And this branch gets really nicely developed and it ties into the front. And then there are lots of little branches over here that start dying off. Unknown Speaker 46:18 I think a lot of scientists in general would not feel comfortable. But I think that as far as as far as women goes, I think that it's very, very helpful for women to hear the fact that science is a creative process, and to be able to understand what they can do. This is completely expected. Unknown Speaker 46:50 This is really we're more than happy. Projects getting Unknown Speaker 47:04 their own personal satisfaction to get involved is one of the most incredible things in the world, you wake up in the morning, around you work in a certain way. And that just gives you a certain thrill and excitement that I think too many women are excluded. Unknown Speaker 47:25 Certainly other problems. And I Unknown Speaker 47:35 basically what we're saying here is that different people bring different things to the work. And since there Unknown Speaker 47:41 are different Unknown Speaker 47:42 possible interpretations of scientific reality that can result and it's very important to get as many of those interpretations in as possible in order to give scientists certain fullness. And that includes getting more minorities into the sciences as well as tapping into you know, because women are who they are because of their social context. They bring a certain way of looking at things which whatever that is, whether it's I don't want to get it but whatever it is, it's something different know that Unknown Speaker 48:23 those perspectives should be brought to light as well. Unknown Speaker 48:43 You explain how Unknown Speaker 48:51 everyone talks color was undergraduate student. Unknown Speaker 49:00 She's a biochemist. Unknown Speaker 49:02 But she writes about she's written personal horizons what it was like and then she wrote a book called Unknown Speaker 49:13 like psychological and cultural Unknown Speaker 49:17 and bonding with the genetics Unknown Speaker 49:34 also wrote first wrote a Unknown Speaker 49:36 book about, about her experiences, and then included many points of what she saw as a chapter in gender decline, but it means that the way she presented it was as an example for a new scientific process. In other words, she said, Okay, man just said that permission this way, but then she said, Alright, Unknown Speaker 50:03 we're gonna set aside. Unknown Speaker 50:04 So she would she suggested that she is replacing, Unknown Speaker 50:07 not necessarily opening up here that might help. But this is a better way to do it. However, the way she Unknown Speaker 50:18 she described Unknown Speaker 50:22 the way it was her idea of listening. But that advice first of all to be true. So again, she's, she's really saying what she's just denying that there is an objective reality and an underlying truth as he doesn't listen hard enough, it will come up. So that's what she that's what she was offering contributions to one of the things I think, Unknown Speaker 50:55 are, you know, what the genetics, it's horrendously difficult. Unknown Speaker 51:02 And secondly, Unknown Speaker 51:04 even though what you're describing is probably turning out to be valid, presented at a time when this Unknown Speaker 51:13 kind of theoretical framework Unknown Speaker 51:18 was kind of thinking about material, the whole structure. So that's what you got to know. That says precisely described by pillar, it's one part of the description. And your idea of the branch has grown very robust, because everybody's adding to it. Unknown Speaker 51:49 correct picture of a police officer somewhat happy to continue doing work, which was rejected by most people in the field at Oberlin, old fashioned no longer. Quietly, Unknown Speaker 52:08 year after year after year, Unknown Speaker 52:10 not much support for it. And finally, it turned out that that just happily, worked on all by herself turned out to have really view this as an aberration. Everybody knows extensively, that we think that Keller's work is groundbreaking. We don't need to throw out we just in the last section, Unknown Speaker 52:53 she actually addresses a way to form a gender free science, it seems to be replaced with a McClintock science and the base and the the underlying philosophy Unknown Speaker 53:07 that is listening to the organism idea, etc, is again, just another word from the scientific perspective. Unknown Speaker 53:17 It's not it doesn't imply that there's an interaction between the observer and Unknown Speaker 53:24 material at all. Unknown Speaker 53:27 If I sit there totally unbiased and Unknown Speaker 53:29 quiet enough Unknown Speaker 53:40 to listen, it's the way Unknown Speaker 53:56 the layperson, reading material, it was really amazed. I heard it as the listing Unknown Speaker 54:10 of respect from interior to stone don't feel connected with taking away Unknown Speaker 54:15 a whole lot of issues that we're hearing today on here. He knows why she wasn't cloud. Hearing. It was Kelly talking to you as we respect for some objective reality is really the clearing away the process of carrying away certain kinds of potentials for standpoints that are not useful. I Unknown Speaker 54:55 certainly prefer to Unknown Speaker 54:56 take a foreign property, totally different Unknown Speaker 54:58 perspective and that is for Here's what we're seeing when I first read, actually, I'm very excited Unknown Speaker 55:11 the first thing that I did was I said, How can I apply this to my own work? And then I, before I answer that question, I read gender and science. And again, by the time I got to the end of the book, I was very excited. And I said, this is really good. Unknown Speaker 55:32 And I don't know what it means. Unknown Speaker 55:36 I don't know I mean, I work with a very strong attraction for this and I don't know Unknown Speaker 55:41 intuitively apart Unknown Speaker 55:48 somehow to me, it means Unknown Speaker 55:49 that Unknown Speaker 55:53 you have to be a tool that you have to separate out fights Unknown Speaker 56:02 and not try to impose the answers Unknown Speaker 56:03 to talk about the fact that men are always trying to impose an answer onto a subject Unknown Speaker 56:10 and I think that we all think that we have to Unknown Speaker 56:20 you have to break Unknown Speaker 56:22 the news you have to break your prejudices to the failure you're not going to be able to sort out the garbage Unknown Speaker 56:29 but a feminine deconstruction and everything I mean really the first process that you have to engage in is cleaning out the land because we all come clean and adapt to that respect to this course you allow your own perception to move into the new perceptions clarify so that I don't think I can just ask what she has brought to the disciplines which is the first thing you should do to try to clean up you know and and then look at it I mean, you're still looking at you don't have an eye but the audit doesn't have that many ways there's different layers you know, Mark Unknown Speaker 57:28 reject objectifying. Color Unknown Speaker 57:40 is not clean but I suppose you were saying and then you affect what he was saying cleaning the lens the lens to be clear and then as opposed to seeing the lens of what's been done before and then realize that you have a desire Unknown Speaker 57:58 that that you we all Unknown Speaker 58:05 know, a wonderful beginning I Unknown Speaker 58:08 think that this is a wonderful scholarship everybody Unknown Speaker 58:14 we just didn't think that it went for it because I Unknown Speaker 58:17 usually don't have to actually build out the phone you're Unknown Speaker 58:23 left with understanding as a result of Unknown Speaker 58:26 all the colors we're Unknown Speaker 58:28 left with understanding what the problems were weakness Unknown Speaker 58:44 What would you have to use, you have to proceed Unknown Speaker 58:48 using certain underlying things that Unknown Speaker 58:52 go along with those underlying function that you have, where you work, you have to believe something. So on so we had to Unknown Speaker 59:04 construct a certain type of model model and try to work with that. And we're not saying that this is the way the only way that we have a way of looking at process but we thought that this is a very interesting book from my class Finding something needed ready to sit down and you're not going to possibly have a very traditional Unknown Speaker 1:00:51 understanding of our wants and wishes by my actions Unknown Speaker 1:01:03 she's really trying to find models Unknown Speaker 1:01:07 where he they're having you made you feel free to help us with Unknown Speaker 1:01:31 history that's really what I liked very much because there is this Unknown Speaker 1:01:47 implication that Unknown Speaker 1:01:49 the truth comes from Unknown Speaker 1:01:53 the truth is not my immaterial and the truth is not like Unknown Speaker 1:02:03 my understanding of Unknown Speaker 1:02:06 it doesn't quite work that way as Unknown Speaker 1:02:09 I understand it what happens is as you try harder and harder to clean the land when he discovers Unknown Speaker 1:02:16 the entire process Unknown Speaker 1:02:21 it ultimately went away Unknown Speaker 1:02:23 and there's nothing it's nothing to see through a clue as to Unknown Speaker 1:02:28 what that ultimately was very dark very dark Unknown Speaker 1:02:36 although he has claimed the feminist claim to a certain standard I think Unknown Speaker 1:02:44 that it doesn't mean to Unknown Speaker 1:02:46 be unbiased admission of everything which I think it is acknowledges by what you're trying to say language was no character perhaps a difference there it's very interesting to see one of the places where this is coming. What is something good science is clear is an objective is to be a scientist as a white coat. in which to your mouth. Unknown Speaker 1:03:56 But that's the sense in Unknown Speaker 1:03:57 which your filler is almost writing this is back to back, Unknown Speaker 1:04:03 Nick, which which is someone Unknown Speaker 1:04:07 that I think is what is one of the things drives people away from Science, Space sterile, non for native thing because all you do is you delegate models or models, and there's there's no there's nothing created. And I think very few work even though we are responsible for the undergraduate science and how important it is to take care of objectivity, same time. It's a very it's not really the way things work. There's an awful lot of fashion and design And now and what's expected now there's, there's there are all sorts of things which are very, very few that can I don't know why why horse? Training your buddy? No. I think there's some truth to Why are you watching Social scientists are one step behind this. Eric Eric, claim your base your whole sense of work on the fact that you are unbiased no is not that way, but you don't have to go through this. Scientists don't buy math or animal reactions in order to be able to relate to science Unknown Speaker 1:06:23 he was very deliberate Unknown Speaker 1:06:26 to avoid certain issues. Unknown Speaker 1:06:29 I think about it. One is, I don't want to get into what women were doing. And the other was a skirting around some of the dangers and difficulties that women face when they try to approach science, I think you tried to pose it more as we'd like to invite more women to science because it's beneficial to science and beneficial to women. But there's a very delicate sore spot there that I think if women are truly going to start entering science, and I think that what you're doing is part of that kind of the test. When we look back and understand his understanding of the world. And when you say that he influenced the Constitution and history and the way we think another thing that may not have said so explicitly was it, he was influenced by the world he was living in, and his perception of the world, which is exactly what you're saying, what is reality. Anyway, his perception of the world partly came about because there was a concept of force, a concept of force, which wasn't physics yet, you know, authority force. And somehow he translated, he isolated from the world, and turned it into something which became physics. But there was a symbiosis. Symbiosis by by virtue of the world he existed in the world view he created was part of the world that he existed. And we can come to a greater understanding of his world, if we understand if we know more about the entirety he existed. We know about the political situation, if we know about music, if we know about philosophy at that time, we can understand why he thought deterministically. And as women, I think, one of our first attempt when we land on the stage, here we are, we want to start studying science. And the first things that we might feel is a sense of alienation from science. What does this mean to me? Why should I use that? Maybe I'm threatened by the whole thing, and I want to run away from and maybe one coping mechanism is to look back at Isaac Newton, and say, well, Isaac Newton, face this reality and in trying to understand that this is how he thought about it. But you understand the world he believed in, because you understand his whole world context better. And that's a first attempt, I think, at feminist science, which was really my question. When I came here. There was this title, quantum mechanics, and feminist science, and I said, My God, how are they going to pull it off? We are in this is feminist science. And, and there's a certain fear every time you're posed that question, kind of want to run away from it. What is feminist science? What do women have to bring to science today? And why is it different? It's important to ask that because if you're a woman trying to do science, you want to know what you're supposed to do. Where are you going to? Where are you coming from? And at least part of it, I think, is trying to stand back and get more perceptive, more perspective in order to have perception. Unknown Speaker 1:09:56 No, I think your point is very well made and it's not one We actually overlook your Unknown Speaker 1:10:01 discussion on security at all. We actually spent a lot Unknown Speaker 1:10:05 of time at first, after reading Cody's book trying to define what Unknown Speaker 1:10:09 is feminine and masculine and Unknown Speaker 1:10:10 how women would do science as opposed to man. All sorts of words gets thrown around about being more intuitive. And your wife is that for anybody, for any woman trying to break into something, there's necessarily a certain amount of pain, which is a reality, because of the situation that we face. When you're one woman sitting in 50 men, you don't, whatever this theory says here may not be very meaningful to you. Unknown Speaker 1:10:50 But the thing Unknown Speaker 1:10:51 is, is that what we want Unknown Speaker 1:10:55 to take away right now Unknown Speaker 1:11:01 it's not bad at. All. But Unknown Speaker 1:11:20 what we wanted to do was to figure Unknown Speaker 1:11:22 out why it is that a lot of women were avoiding science. Some of it certainly was Keller's experience that it was the team that eventually turned her away from. It just Unknown Speaker 1:11:37 finally got Unknown Speaker 1:11:37 to her and any assignments, I'm sure that each of us have our own experiences. But what we thought was very important was to rectify the situation, and not necessarily to address each woman's pain, those of us who have gotten gone a certain distance with it already. But to try to be a little bit more forward looking and to say, how can we get more women to go into sciences? Why is it that there is such a very obvious paucity of women in all scientific Unknown Speaker 1:12:15 fields, particularly in high school. Unknown Speaker 1:12:19 And one of the things that we felt was very important to me. And Unknown Speaker 1:12:28 I found myself in talking to some of my students, and I teach a course that's for non scientists. And along that line, by the way, just like to mention parents, parents edits. I certainly do appreciate the fact that that scientists are also influenced by their worldview, I did not mean, to be unidirectional. But that's sure that was the emphasis. But a few of women who have taken my course have thought about majoring in science. And many of them, started out taking this route after my course and eventually decided that it wasn't for them. And it makes you wonder why it is that there's a certain excitement there. There's a certain attraction. And then when you sit down and you start solving problem after problem after problem of Baltimore, young women, one of my students actually was struggling very much between being an artist and being a scientist. And she finally decided to do art. And I said, you know, why would I want to make this choice? And she said, Well, first of all, when I do art, I feel like I've done something, I'm not reproducing somebody else's results in the lab. I'm giving something of myself. And although that can't be done, so immediately in science, it should be publicized, that that is what science is all about. It's giving something of yourself, and I think that valley expressing very well, it's like that there is this myth, which is very harmful, especially to a community of women. That science is somehow very rigid, very sterile. And it's not it's very much a creative process. And although a lot of scientists know that a lot of women who are thinking of things scientists do not appreciate, Unknown Speaker 1:14:33 but they're also threatened by the kind of creativity. They think they don't have, that they think it requires. And I think that's much more powerful. It's not like they're rejecting science so much is that science is rejecting them, and they feel that powerfully at least that's what, how many of you would agree with that. And that that sense of rejection is just over powerful. Unknown Speaker 1:14:58 That's a problem, which is very difficult to rectify. What you're talking about is a problem of prejudice and oppression as a feeling of alienation. That is a result. And Unknown Speaker 1:15:11 the way to rectify it is to teach people that they are capable of the things that they don't think they are capable of. Unknown Speaker 1:15:18 Well, yes, as long as they're capable of. Unknown Speaker 1:15:21 But of course, that's a very intertwined issue. Because when when you've been when your legs have been cut off, you can't jump when you're a frog. Unknown Speaker 1:15:32 Yes, but I'm wondering how many people want to even jump in that direction, because they don't think that it's going to be a fun party over there. Okay, so it's two things, it's not just, you'll realize that we're not covering all the issues, this is not some magic pill that you've taken all the problems and women in science are solved. But we, we did feel that that one of the largest problems are a very large problem, which can be directly addressed. The problem of oppression is much harder issue. But one problem that we see can be very easily addressed, is the process. There's a lot that you can give to it just like making a creative piece of music. Unknown Speaker 1:16:28 I'm one of those artists. I'm really glad I came here today because I'm facing Unknown Speaker 1:16:35 a choice to a Unknown Speaker 1:16:38 dissertation theology doctrine. Unknown Speaker 1:16:42 I love it. That I can't stand is being asked, male dominated question. What? So what if I love to understand? Some really, really powerful. Law. So what are the main? Unknown Speaker 1:17:13 Oh, for example, my Unknown Speaker 1:17:14 oral exam. I was describing something electroplating. And I didn't understand the process. And he said, Well, how does the chrome get on cars? That's something I've never seen something about cooking. Wondering about how encouraged Unknown Speaker 1:17:43 little things like that. Just the way you're oriented, and you're stupid, if you've ever wondered about something like that? Unknown Speaker 1:17:59 I guess I just wanted to say that and say that? I'm not. Right now I don't really have a vision of what women? It's kind of like until I see, it's like where did I don't want to sit around and Unknown Speaker 1:18:22 wait to propose part of the solution for there to be an entire solution. That is out. And Unknown Speaker 1:18:28 I see also that Unknown Speaker 1:18:31 although certain certain problems that have women in science working and there's you know, as in everything else, there's a feedback mechanism that if you get more when you're doing clients, some of those problems will just go away by virtue of having Unknown Speaker 1:18:55 a mentor going to have something now that it's really hard emphasize, I will tell you, I've tried to go. And it's a really difficult thing. And I can't get around, understand when you don't do that, if you stop using your ballot, and even if you don't have the same perspective, even if you were always in a sexist environment, or excuse me, or whatever, you can just talk it out. Here's one that I do have that's related that isn't focused on step Unknown Speaker 1:19:29 two. Now later on, you know, Unknown Speaker 1:19:31 we'll start at the foundation, start raising, you know, first grade secondary teaching women just as men, it's not specific to gender. Unknown Speaker 1:19:48 I think that a lot of the work that you're doing can be fed right back into the system. I think it's one of the one of the things about academic scholars. That's a very small level. As far as we got a tidbit that I got this morning in the Director of Career Services she told me that the alumni college sorry he gave Unknown Speaker 1:20:11 two top Unknown Speaker 1:20:12 courses and number one courses computers number two for specifics in terms of enrollment and I asked him what do you think that when we do this for every column inside of it it's just the world around us is coming into us saying yes is happening so prevalent that yeah, you have to know about it. And the community of women that are going to be in his practice report this in a way that I see that you didn't have when you weren't when you were studying it just it's so wonderful that now they see that isn't a human need to have the support of women around who are going through this and that's why overwhelming college is such a Unknown Speaker 1:20:55 huge this is a little point that just made me think about I don't know how many of the refugees they asked to display the screen I enjoyed very much but one of these days I didn't bring a tomato and throw it the next one apologizes for showing me something Unknown Speaker 1:21:22 that I wanted one of the Unknown Speaker 1:21:24 reasons I love Unknown Speaker 1:21:26 my first one I didn't make the professor apologize I don't even want to say I'm sorry big idea that a bunch of feminists are apologizing for putting out a lousy little XY graph Unknown Speaker 1:21:52 our lab reports in high school we had a racism that comes up stigma against we can mess up Brett theory a wonderful guy Unknown Speaker 1:22:12 I was talking Unknown Speaker 1:22:13 earlier about that whole presentation apologize but as far as I'm concerned, Unknown Speaker 1:22:19 I mean I have some special guests but she was very clear when Unknown Speaker 1:22:22 she presented it to me she went along a chance to it's not Unknown Speaker 1:22:28 like she was putting it up and expecting everyone to understand it but she could just it was fine Unknown Speaker 1:22:33 and that's the kind of thing that you should do is not apologize but just make sure you're clear to your audience and you don't have to assume that just seeing it it's going to take Unknown Speaker 1:22:41 them off and if you notice in them to Matt and explain it to me they won't Unknown Speaker 1:22:46 think oh my god a growl Oh No Forget it Unknown Speaker 1:22:48 you know a block that block that understanding what is the basic underlying Unknown Speaker 1:23:26 claim? Why? Unknown Speaker 1:23:31 Changes Unknown Speaker 1:23:34 validity because people aren't socially constructed Unknown Speaker 1:23:47 and when women and women are very settled in expenses and that's why it's so good to have always been a very good focus board and a lot of support Unknown Speaker 1:24:14 without my friends it was very Unknown Speaker 1:24:19 lonely, but there was the love of physics. That kept me going and just saying I'm not going to let these things down because Unknown Speaker 1:24:31 that doesn't make me a better person but the people that have been tough I hope that one day that it doesn't have to struggle, but it will be more of an intellectual struggle as always. Unknown Speaker 1:24:55 Can you guys track back as far as Unknown Speaker 1:24:59 The big study? Unknown Speaker 1:25:10 I mean, that's almost like Unknown Speaker 1:25:14 I don't know what the current research is. That starts so all boys whatever? I don't know. But that's, Unknown Speaker 1:25:30 I mean, that's really tricky. Unknown Speaker 1:25:33 For most people I run with you don't necessarily Unknown Speaker 1:25:37 know I mean, I mean, Unknown Speaker 1:25:39 what are generally? I think girls, I think the research is that if anybody excels. But actually, that's not really true. Is there anybody who's looking back to grade school children is with a girl or a kid in mathematics? How about seventh or eighth grade? More or more vicious in the city of interpretation with that challenge? Got it. And it really had there. There are some very serious universities where the research is going on and some people will say, Unknown Speaker 1:26:22 hormones and Unknown Speaker 1:26:31 drag it even. I mean, I totally get that. Unknown Speaker 1:26:35 So where does that I mean, is Unknown Speaker 1:26:36 that back down to science, Unknown Speaker 1:26:41 or is still good up, they do better. But but but I've also read that girls are better. They do better, but But apparently, even even the grammar school letter level, she asked the girls who was once in the class, so I don't say. So thing you're talking about, which is like with all the fines and some sort of Unknown Speaker 1:27:03 being in a room and being intimidated by the rational innovator that, that Unknown Speaker 1:27:12 I remember being a director of TA and overseeing an introductory physics lab. And every so often over the counter, Unknown Speaker 1:27:24 people who would Unknown Speaker 1:27:27 pair up as lab partners, one male and one female. And inevitably, what would happen over the course of the semester, is that the woman would feel assumed that she knew much less than her male partner, and would assume a secretarial role in data. And then we'll be there putting all the pieces together and very, you know, it's very, very frustrating for Unknown Speaker 1:27:57 me, and there's even a particular case Unknown Speaker 1:27:59 that I remember that and it got me more than anything else, because it was very clear to me that the union had a much clearer understanding of what happened in your class. Say no. And the reason Am I doing this just right. Unknown Speaker 1:28:58 Witnesses? Unknown Speaker 1:29:00 I haven't done extensive research at all, but what I have found so far, I don't know, the it's only coming down, or coming up, I think, both in the middle, I think it depends, because here, it's what you see other women doing, which is why it's so important to have other women Unknown Speaker 1:29:16 doing everything. Unknown Speaker 1:29:18 You know, maybe one of those, Unknown Speaker 1:29:20 this might be a simplistic reason, but Unknown Speaker 1:29:22 anything changes that way, that's when you get elected. That's when you have to choose what you're gonna do when it's or when they're attacking us, right. So all those sorts of factors that come in to make people have investment decisions that actually start looking around. People excuse it themselves. You know, that's that's one sort of explanation typically in that time, rather than ever before, and the word has often taken away with it, but afterwards, there was much more pressure yogic not I think that was Unknown Speaker 1:30:05 there more forced to Unknown Speaker 1:30:12 that as much as sentiment Unknown Speaker 1:30:35 there are a number of Unknown Speaker 1:30:35 groups, you society the American Chemical Society has a very active local New York biophysical society which are very women, there are ways to tap into people. And I found that very helpful. Well worth it what you just said, I Unknown Speaker 1:31:17 think it's a very good point Unknown Speaker 1:31:21 on a quantitative way on the grand scheme, but from today from the more reliable audit, and survival linear Unknown Speaker 1:31:31 something. Unknown Speaker 1:31:31 And once you say that nothing Unknown Speaker 1:31:34 is right for the court, very important. But Unknown Speaker 1:31:39 also, women more times now feel in a way they have to prove themselves and to do they might work 40 hours a day and kill themselves in a big way. And I'm very spiritual level and say, God, I'm working hard, not just for myself, but to a larger, a larger group, I think that someone would have that on their shoulders in a very, very heavy way. It almost has to be balanced out by the support system. Your brain to work is so wonderful. And I hope to know that there's women around her not to work 40 hours a week, doing chemists. And she went in as a chemist in 1981. And to join rock and sand and not so it's not. And I started killing yourself. And I'm one of the reasons I was very proud of it. One of the reasons he actually called me pressure as well. But I'm a watchman. I think one of the reasons we're not ready for that was pretty high. And I think that that's a waste to every school you went to graduate school. And to the point that it will take a decision backfiring on us last week that to make sure that you support each other successful, fortunately, is just the common. Unknown Speaker 1:33:09 As an undergraduate, I was interested in acting class for a while until I got this girl. It seems to me that the women in the classes were more concerned with Bing, right. They could find results, they could pass the generic lab report. It's been around since 1940. You know, and women were much more excited about that. I know for me, I would go back and back and have to kill I would get the results and sometimes. Unknown Speaker 1:33:42 I wonder if I really wanted to be and then it was really more discouraging because I was careful. Now maybe why wasn't those results get right. Unknown Speaker 1:33:59 Can you tell if you overburden yourself