4 ms·

Someone whose wikipedia page now reads: "Nowak played a role in substantiating Epstein's false claims to MIT administrators that he had given tens of millions o

Someone whose wikipedia page now reads: "Nowak played a role in substantiating Epstein's false claims to MIT administrators that he had given tens of millions of dollars to Harvard" shouldn't be cited as an impartial authority on anonymous donations. It's relevant.

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
That's just it! Nobody is taking him as an impartial authority on anonymous donations. This is science. Nobody has to take anyone else's word. You do the research, you show your work. Go look at the math. Go look at the data. It's right there. Nowak's most famous paper doesn't even involve any data!
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > Go look at the data. No, I won't be doing this - my point is that his work is corrupted by his other actions. He publicly lied on the topic of his research, for personal gain, and was caught doing so. Why would I then trust the honesty of his research? There are millions of other researchers who are more deserving of my time. Science is not completely objective. He can choose what to work on; he can choose how to present it; he can choose what to show and what to hide. It is not worthy just because it is done. Even if I trust that it is correct (and how can I?), it is a biased presentation.
  - selfishgene 6y ago
    Bingo!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- selfishgene 6y ago
  Just so you know, not everyone agrees that Mr. Nowak's contributions to evolutionary biology are all that significant. I'm glad that you do ... but there are highly respected mathematicians who question whether Harvard math should have offered him tenure. There is often a positive feedback mechanism sometimes at work in these situations whereby the subjective value of an academic's work is often determined as a function of the prestige of the organizations with which he has been associated, which then leads to awards followed by even more prestigious associations. And accepting almost $7 million from a child rapist like Jeffrey Epstein of course only corrupts this process further.

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago

That's just it! Nobody is taking him as an impartial authority on anonymous donations. This is science. Nobody has to take anyone else's word. You do the research, you show your work. Go look at the math. Go look at the data. It's right there. Nowak's most famous paper doesn't even involve any data!

throwaway2245 6y ago
> Go look at the data. No, I won't be doing this - my point is that his work is corrupted by his other actions. He publicly lied on the topic of his research, for personal gain, and was caught doing so. Why would I then trust the honesty of his research? There are millions of other researchers who are more deserving of my time. Science is not completely objective. He can choose what to work on; he can choose how to present it; he can choose what to show and what to hide. It is not worthy just because it is done. Even if I trust that it is correct (and how can I?), it is a biased presentation.
- selfishgene 6y ago
  Bingo!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
selfishgene 6y ago
Just so you know, not everyone agrees that Mr. Nowak's contributions to evolutionary biology are all that significant. I'm glad that you do ... but there are highly respected mathematicians who question whether Harvard math should have offered him tenure. There is often a positive feedback mechanism sometimes at work in these situations whereby the subjective value of an academic's work is often determined as a function of the prestige of the organizations with which he has been associated, which then leads to awards followed by even more prestigious associations. And accepting almost $7 million from a child rapist like Jeffrey Epstein of course only corrupts this process further.