"Applied science incorrectly to confirm a bias or advance an opinion incorrectly" and "applied science to form an opinion" are different things. Damore did the former.
If someone approached this problem with a blank slated, looked at the evidence, formed an opinion, then wrote something to back their opinion, how could you tell them apart from someone who had an opinion and applied science to just advance their opinion? Assume both are average, and thus imperfect, writers.
Except "what is correct" is the whole point of the debate, so nobody knows which side is doing the former until everybody agrees, which they most certainly do not agree yet.
Mind you that to the other side, it looks to us like what you're doing is the former and not the latter (until some common ground is found).
He wrote the article as a research article. So every time he put an statement he referenced it with a research article which supports that statement. I don't understand why this is wrong. All research papers are written this way.
What? Research papers tend to also present data and research that arrive at different conclusions when such things exist, or show how the existing body of knowledge is deficient in some way. Usually the point is either accounting for the difference or showing how the authors' research refutes, modifies, or augments the body of knowledge as it stands. Damore didn't present a research paper. He presented an accusation of left-bias and poorly argued his case.
Yes, but they do it in the topic they are discussing. The manifest was focused in changing the diversity programs in the company and was presenting facts to consider that option. In no way it was focused in discussing the differences between gender as a lot of people is try to claim. And it makes quite clear the difference between average and individuals.
