The Larry Summers flap bores me. He said something that reasonable people can disagree about, so unreasonable people shouted both sides down. Time to go watch a DVD.
But Sharon Begley's column in Friday's Wall Street Journal finally got to me. Ms. Begley writes quite good columns on science (gasp: I think she even reads journal articles), and she brings a lot to bear on this issue. All of it against Summers' contention that men and women may differ biologically in their aptitude towards science.
My problem is that the position of Summers' opponents (who may yet be proven right) is that it does not satisfy Occam's razor. It is very hard to get people to admit that it is even possible that we observe differences in science outcomes by sex because the inputs are different. Yet, this is the simplest explanation.
If this troubles you, then you also need to come up with a trendy 21st-century sensitive reason for why men are so much better at working at industrial pig farms than women. From personal experience, I know that the Occam's razor principle explains the case of the most recent man I know who worked at an industrial pig farm (and couldn't even hold that job).