3 ms·

Are you quoting RationalWiki to back up his complaint about it in his article? That paragraph matches his summary of what it claims about him, i.e. not exactly

Are you quoting RationalWiki to back up his complaint about it in his article? That paragraph matches his summary of what it claims about him, i.e. not exactly 'rational' writing. This is just one more story in a steady stream of such stories. It's pretty clear by now that academia is basically the opposite of what it claims to be. Not sure this new story really adds anything: the world outside of academia already got the message that "academic freedom" is a fiction, if it ever existed at all, and the supposed superiority of academic research is a lie - so much of it doesn't replicate or is just outright buggy. I used to be shocked by this sort of event but now I just wonder what these academics were thinking? Why would anyone stay in academia if they want to explore topics the hard-left ideologically rejects? It's obvious how that ends, now. Also: his mistake was apologising. He shouldn't have agreed that his tweets were badly worded or that he'd be more "strategic". If you're the victim of this sort of attack the right strategy is to attack back, strongly. You don't try and compromise with anonymous complainants, ever.

throwaway68888 7y ago
The reason "academia" rejects him isn't because his claims are somehow disturbing or controversial - it's because they're scientifically bogus and there's enough reason to believe that he's not arguing in good faith. Scientists make plenty of controversial claims and aren't afraid to be vocal about it - see climate change, or the harmful effects of many products like tobacco, which used to be (and in many cases, still are) largely ignored by the general population.
eesmith 7y ago
I'm quoting RationalWiki because invariably - on topics which I understand - whatever I read on Quillette is whacky nonsense, while the summaries from RationalWiki are much better aligned to my independently drawn conclusions. Basically, I don't trust Quillette. Which you can see from earlier comments of mine - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=eesmith%20quillette&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... . ("More Quillette nonsense." and "I don't understand why people keep linking to Quillette. Just about every article I've read from them seems like poor-quality scholarship.") I also don't trust editorials (even in large corporate media like the NYT) - and this is an editorial. And because my understanding of "evolutionary biology" is that the field is close to a joke, full of just-so stories which are not based on evolution, anthropology, or history. (See https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-probably-isnt-possible/ https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-... ) So there are several strikes against me placing trust in the honesty of this piece. Academia is hard-left? LOL! Who's been brainwashing you? At best it's American mid-left, which is far from hard-left. Do we see most professors marching in support for unions for college employees and grad students? Do we see professors on strike for increased salaries for grad students and adjuncts? Do we see massive numbers of professors advocating for free college education for all, and against the MBA takeover of universities? No. Even then, those position wouldn't be hard-left - that would be average European.

throwaway68888 7y ago

The reason "academia" rejects him isn't because his claims are somehow disturbing or controversial - it's because they're scientifically bogus and there's enough reason to believe that he's not arguing in good faith. Scientists make plenty of controversial claims and aren't afraid to be vocal about it - see climate change, or the harmful effects of many products like tobacco, which used to be (and in many cases, still are) largely ignored by the general population.

eesmith 7y ago

I'm quoting RationalWiki because invariably - on topics which I understand - whatever I read on Quillette is whacky nonsense, while the summaries from RationalWiki are much better aligned to my independently drawn conclusions. Basically, I don't trust Quillette. Which you can see from earlier comments of mine - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=eesmith%20quillette&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... . ("More Quillette nonsense." and "I don't understand why people keep linking to Quillette. Just about every article I've read from them seems like poor-quality scholarship.") I also don't trust editorials (even in large corporate media like the NYT) - and this is an editorial. And because my understanding of "evolutionary biology" is that the field is close to a joke, full of just-so stories which are not based on evolution, anthropology, or history. (See https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-probably-isnt-possible/ https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-... ) So there are several strikes against me placing trust in the honesty of this piece. Academia is hard-left? LOL! Who's been brainwashing you? At best it's American mid-left, which is far from hard-left. Do we see most professors marching in support for unions for college employees and grad students? Do we see professors on strike for increased salaries for grad students and adjuncts? Do we see massive numbers of professors advocating for free college education for all, and against the MBA takeover of universities? No. Even then, those position wouldn't be hard-left - that would be average European.