But you can use "evolution" or "free market", because people are divided about this topics, because many of them just lack the basic knowledge.

Evolution is true, in the sense that there is overwhelming evidence that men evolved from apes, and that likenesses between kinds is a literal family resemblance, the result of ancestral shared blood or sap. "Evolution" is untrue, in that use of the word "evolution" tends to be almost perfectly correlated with distaste for the implications of Darwinism, and complete disbelief in the implications of Darwinism for humans and human nature, tends to be a codeword for denial of Darwinism.

Darwinism, however, is true, for the same reasons as evolution is true, and, unlike "evolution", is not a codeword for a collection of pious politically correct beliefs. Hence Dawkins, despite his otherwise progressive beliefs, calls himself a Darwinist, not an evolutionist.

However any discussion of the difference between "evolution" and Darwinism would produce a mind killing response that makes the discussion of gender differences harmless by comparison.

Is it not at least equally likely that the present is crazy, and the past was wise?

No, it is not. Knowledge is generally cumulative, although there are occasional setbacks

There are frequent major setbacks

If it is not "at least equally likely", it is still quite likely - particularly in matters influenced by politics, where knowledge, for obvious reasons, does not accumulate.

To defend the present, one has to argue truth, not cite today's authorities. One has to compare today's authorities with the evidence on which their claims are supposedly based. That the official truth about the past is a lie reveals social decay, just as that the official truth about the Soviet harvest was a lie revealed that communes do not work.

The way the wind is blowing, future generations living in hovels may well be as amazed by the moon landing as we are amazed by the Antikythera mechanism, as political lies spill over into bureaucratic lies, producing irreproducible results in science.

But as far as I can tell, Marie Curie was the first scientist to realize that radiation is attributable to internal properties of atoms

Untrue - and for evidence of it being true, you would need to quote a paper by her issued before she was made into a mascot, not a paper about her after she was made into a mascot.

For her to be the first scientist to realize that, she would have to issue a paper in which she asserted that, which she did not do.

What she in fact did was measure various samples prepared for her by her husband and another of his assistants, using a radiation measuring device invented and built by her husband, and as a result of these measurements, she did in fact assert that:

"All the uranium compounds studied are active, and are, in general, more active to the extent that they contain more uranium.[25]

From which other people, Rutherford and people around him, concluded that the radiation arose from the internal structure of the atom.

Marie Curie was not able to draw the conclusion you and the twenty first century Nobel committee attribute to her, because the radioactivity she measured was not in fact exactly proportional to the amount of uranium, due to the build up of radon after purification. To make the discovery you attribute to her, would have needed to first discover radioactive decay, or at least first discover radon.

She strongly suspected the conclusion you attribute to her, and did experiments intended to show it, but her results were confounded by radon.

Since the measured radioactivity was not exactly proportional to the amount of the element, the evidence that she thought she saw seemingly showed that radioactive decay was influenced, at least to some extent, by the chemical form.

Which is why the discovery of radon by Rutherford and his people was far more important than the discovery of radium by Pierre Curie and his people: because it enabled Rutherford to draw the conclusion that you falsely attribute to Marie Curie.

The reason Pierre Curie's group gets bigger publicity than Rutherford's group is that one of the people in Pierre Curie's group was a woman.

The discovery of radon made it possible to do measurements that substituted "exactly", for "generally", to measure that radioactivity was exactly proportional to the amount of the element, rather than "in general, more active to the extent that they contain more uranium", from which one could then conclude that radioactivity was internal to the structure of the atom - a conclusion Marie Curie's evidence seemingly contradicted.

From the Nobel Prize website:

This discovery was absolutely revolutionary.

I claimed history was rewritten in the period 1906, 1911. To refute that claim, you need early sources, pre 1906 sources, not today's sources.

Perhaps you should instead look at 1900 sources, stuff published shortly after Pierre Curie discovered radium, rather than post hoc rationalizations published after Marie Curie had already been made a mascot.

The original basis for making her a mascot was the discovery of radium - in which her role was minor and peripheral.

First they made her a mascot, then they discovered her contributions were absolutely revolutionary.

What was revolutionary was the discovery of radioactive decay, that radioactivity arose from the transmutation of the elements, which discovery came from Rutherford and the circle of people around him, not from Pierre Curie and the circle of people around him, and came from the discovery of radon, not the discovery of radium.

Pierre Curie's big contribution was to invent and build a device for quantitatively measuring radioactivity, and then set his wife to work measuring the radioactivity of various samples that he and his other assistants prepared.

So even if the discovery that radioactivity was independent of the chemical form of the element was "absolutely revolutionary", it can even less be attributed to Marie Curie than can the discovery of radium.

I notice you completely ignored the concrete example I gave of comparable discrimination being explicitly avowed by a premier scientific organization at about the same time (Hertha Ayrton at the RS). No national scientific academy in the West would conceivably respond to a female nominee that way now.

But is this evidence that they are reasonable and realistic now, while they used to be moonbat crazy right wing misogynists back then, or is it evidence that they were moonbat crazy leftwing feminists back then, and even more moonbat crazy left wing feminists now?

If the view in 1911 was right wing misogynist, and the view now is rational and evidence based, why did everyone back then "know" who discovered radium, and yet not know who discovered any of the other elements?

Supposing that the post 1830 view is non ideological and evidence based, this needs to argued for and justified, rather than merely assumed.

Should you assume that the present is wise, and the past was crazy? Is it not at least equally likely that the present is crazy, and the past was wise?

Seems to me that the view of women that was held from 1680 to 1830 was realistic and evidence based, while the view of women held by the influential and higher authority from 1830 to the present is moonbat crazy and ideologically based. For example, the seduction community is today rediscovering politically incorrect truths about female sexuality that everyone knew and took for granted before 1830 - albeit the old account was that women tend to make self destructive sexual choices, so need male kin supervising their sex lives, while the new seduction community account is that women tend to make self destructive sexual choices, so here is how to take advantage of them.

Official truth about sex and the sexes changed pretty drastically some time not long after 1830, but then it took a couple of centuries to remake society in accord with the new official truth. But the strains, the lies, the hypocrisy, and the doublethink required for this social engineering give credence to the 1660-1830 official truth and cast doubt on the post 1830 official truth. The more society is remade in accordance with the 1830 official truth, the more strain it shows.

That you don't know who discovered any of the elements other than Radium without looking it up, is reason to doubt the version of history in which Marie Curie discovered Radium, and even if she was the discoverer of Radium (which she was not) the fact that everyone "knows" it now, and everyone "knew" it then, shows she was a mascot then as now - which in turn shows that women have been being affirmative actioned for a very long time, which in turn is reason to suspect that the modern view is moonbat crazy - and that it was similarly moonbat crazy in 1911, in fact moonbat crazy from around 1830 to the present.

She was the first scientist to realize that radiation isn't due to a chemical reaction, but due to structural properties of individual atoms. She was also thereby the first scientist to provide evidence that atoms have an internal structure.

This is simply untrue. Rutherford, and the discovery of radon, revealed that.

And Pierre Curie, not Marie Curie, discovered radium.

Pierre Curie was working with radioactivity before he set his wife to work on it. He invented and made the radiation sensor that she then used to measure various things, under his supervision. He built the sensor; he selected the materials that she measured; he or his assistants prepared the materials that she measured.

Giesel and Elster report that in 1900, Pierre Curie, having discovered radium and prepared samples thereof, gave them samples, and they thereupon proceeded to study the chemical properties of Radium.

Giesel, FO. Ueber radioactive Stoffe. Ber Dtsche Chem Ges. 1900;33:3569–71.

Six years later history was progressively adjusted to give progressively more prominence to one of his assistants.

Which adjustment of history (from the account given at the time, to the account given a few years afterwards) indicates that they were moonbat crazy left wing feminists then, and even more moonbat crazy now.

This is a time when the Royal Institute could refuse to let her give a talk simply on the grounds that she was a woman.

I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. Can you produce an actual quote wherein the Royal institute gave that reason?

It would be as suicidal to give that reason then, as it would be now.

Of course, in practice, people do tend to quietly assume that women tend to be idiots in certain fields, and might well not allow one to speak for that reason, but they don't say the reason out loud in plain words.

but it doesn't follow from this that Curie's contemporaries would feel obliged to praise her scholarship even though they didn't think that much of it simply because she was a woman.

PC was already in effect in the late nineteenth century. When people said politically incorrect things, they were conscious of transgressing.

This is a time when the Royal Institute could refuse to let her give a talk simply on the grounds that she was a woman.

Really?

They said that was the grounds? Actually said such an unspeakable thing out loud? I find that mighty hard to believe.

Sounds mighty like the story that Tully was lynched for whistling at a white woman.

Now possibly the real reason that they did not have her give a talk was that she was woman, but no one would have dared say out loud "because she is a woman"

Your prior should be that a mascot is fictitious until proven otherwise. That a mascot is a mascot is reason to believe that official history has been improved.

In 1906, when Pierre Curie died, his death was reported as follows in the French newspaper Le Matin

"M. Pierre CURIE, le savant qui découvrit le radium, a été écrasé dans la rue et tué net par un camion"

Translation "Mr. Pierre Curie, the scientist who discovered radium, was crushed in the street and killed by a truck"

As for Grace Hopper, she gets credited with the first compiler: But a compiler compiles a language. The great majority of references to the language her compiler supposedly compiled are mascot references rather than language references, and are hugely outweighed by language references to Fortran. Therefore, no such language, no such compiler.

Grace Hopper's actual contribution to computing was that she designed the Cobol language, the second high level computer language. She seems to have originally been made a mascot for developing Cobol, which she quite genuinely did, and then, when people responded by saying unkind things about Cobol, got credited with the first compiler instead, an improvement typical of mascot history..

If Cobol was less loathed, Grace Hopper would be a reasonable mascot as the creator of the second high level language. Since Cobol stinks, Lovelace, the second computer programmer, is the better mascot.

Near as I can check history, the manufacture of poster girls for science first happens at the start of the twentieth century, but the manufacture of poster girls for computer programming did not happen until much later. Thus history that makes Ada the second computer programmer can be believed, to the extent that it quotes pre twentieth century sources.

Whenever history involves mascots, it should be viewed with suspicion. If people make an undue fuss about a dancing bear, that is evidence that bears cannot dance, rather than evidence that bears can dance. Your prior should be that a mascot is fictitious until proven otherwise.

Ada Lovelace is a mascot, Grace Hopper is a mascot. However Ada Lovelace predates promotion of female mascots, and was the second computer programmer (Babbage being the first), in that she found a bug in one of Babbage's programs.

Babbage wrote, thirty years before it was policy to ballyhoo the contributions of oppressed groups:

I then suggested that she add some notes to Menabrea's memoir, an idea which was immediately adopted. We discussed together the various illustrations that might be introduced: I suggested several but the selection was entirely her own. So also was the algebraic working out of the different problems, except, indeed, that relating to the numbers of Bernoulli, which I had offered to do to save Lady Lovelace the trouble. This she sent back to me for an amendment, having detected a grave mistake which I had made in the process.

The traditional critique of democracy is that it leads to what we moderns would call class warfare, demosclerosis, and political corruption (by political corruption, I mean the regulatory state, spawned by Olsonian multiplication of special interests). All of this stuff used to be called the social war, named after the Roman civil wars leading to Sulla's reforms.

To check theory against observation, compare Britain from the restoration to the mid nineteenth century, with Britain from the mid nineteenth century to the present.

Restoration Britain founded the scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions. British merchant adventurers went forth as mobile bandits, and settled down as stationary bandits, creating what was later called the British empire.

Democratic Britain has been downhill from there. If Cecil Rhodes or Lord Garnet was around, you can imagine what they would think of the present state of Britain.