3 ms·

In person, David Reich is an extremely thoughtful and kind guy. I have no reason to doubt his version of events. Population genetics is a remarkably subtle fiel

In person, David Reich is an extremely thoughtful and kind guy. I have no reason to doubt his version of events. Population genetics is a remarkably subtle field, and it's not surprising that a journalist would understand it 95% correctly, with the missing 5% being devastating for their article.

rossdavidh 8y ago
In addition, his recently published book says plenty that does not jibe with the version of his ideas presented in the NYT article. In other words, if he were really as the NYT article suggests, he wouldn't have published that book, which contradicts some of the things the NYT article says he asserts.
dekhn 8y ago
you should always be skeptical, even of nice experts. But in this case, he backed up his arguments with fairly good data (some of this stuff is still in open disagreement when he claims it's fact) so anybody in competent in the field (like a fact checker) could verify his claims. But make no mistake: this was a carefully written rebuttal by a master of the scientific arts, designed to maximize impact and make the Times look like they were unfair to him.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > by a master of the scientific arts, designed to maximize impact and make the Times look like they were unfair to him. As opposed to the journalists who wrote the initial article, who are not masters of their own profession and do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth? Is anyone under the impression that when someone believes they have been falsely represented by a major news outlet and issue a rebuttal that they are trying to maximize impact and make it look like -- i.e., show -- that the outlet was unfair to them?
  - briandear 8y ago
    >... do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth? That’s a very big assumption and a rather naïve view of modern journalism. Impartially reporting the truth is what we like to think journalists do, but it isn’t safe to suggest that’s what they actually do.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      The negative qualifiers in that sentence mean exactly the opposite, due to the “As opposed to” prelude, which is meant to show exasperation. I think a sarcasm is not the right word to describe this. What is it called? Not quite irony either...
      - idrios 8y ago
        Facetious is the word you're looking for. He made the comment in jest, not to be taken seriously
- carbocation 8y ago
  > you should always be skeptical, even of nice experts Ha! You're of course right. A lecture finished right as I was typing so I didn't quite finish. I lead with the comments on his personality because I had intended to close with a comment about how I've never seen him take up such a fierce posture before, and I wanted to make a comment that this was definitely not his usual tone.

rossdavidh 8y ago

In addition, his recently published book says plenty that does not jibe with the version of his ideas presented in the NYT article. In other words, if he were really as the NYT article suggests, he wouldn't have published that book, which contradicts some of the things the NYT article says he asserts.

dekhn 8y ago

you should always be skeptical, even of nice experts. But in this case, he backed up his arguments with fairly good data (some of this stuff is still in open disagreement when he claims it's fact) so anybody in competent in the field (like a fact checker) could verify his claims. But make no mistake: this was a carefully written rebuttal by a master of the scientific arts, designed to maximize impact and make the Times look like they were unfair to him.

jessriedel 8y ago
> by a master of the scientific arts, designed to maximize impact and make the Times look like they were unfair to him. As opposed to the journalists who wrote the initial article, who are not masters of their own profession and do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth? Is anyone under the impression that when someone believes they have been falsely represented by a major news outlet and issue a rebuttal that they are trying to maximize impact and make it look like -- i.e., show -- that the outlet was unfair to them?
- briandear 8y ago
  >... do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth? That’s a very big assumption and a rather naïve view of modern journalism. Impartially reporting the truth is what we like to think journalists do, but it isn’t safe to suggest that’s what they actually do.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    The negative qualifiers in that sentence mean exactly the opposite, due to the “As opposed to” prelude, which is meant to show exasperation. I think a sarcasm is not the right word to describe this. What is it called? Not quite irony either...
    - idrios 8y ago
      Facetious is the word you're looking for. He made the comment in jest, not to be taken seriously
carbocation 8y ago
> you should always be skeptical, even of nice experts Ha! You're of course right. A lecture finished right as I was typing so I didn't quite finish. I lead with the comments on his personality because I had intended to close with a comment about how I've never seen him take up such a fierce posture before, and I wanted to make a comment that this was definitely not his usual tone.