3 ms·

it seems people in this thread like this idea because it could give a platform to not-mainstream-but-not-totally-crackpot ideas in physics, math, sociology, etc

by ausbah 5y ago

it seems people in this thread like this idea because it could give a platform to not-mainstream-but-not-totally-crackpot ideas in physics, math, sociology, etc. The sorts of ideas that might disregarded by experts in a field but not things anyone would necessarily get "cancelled" for the creators of this journal seem to have a more cynical definition of "controversial" >controversial, in the sense that certain views about them might be regarded by many people as morally, socially, or ideologically objectionable or offensive the seem to want to attract articles that are not mainstream because they are ethically and morally outrageous to most people (say bigotry, cruelty, eugenics, etc.) the small amount of papers published so far seems to be mostly the former thankfully, I personally do not think ideas pertaining to the former should be given a platform exactly because of their content

wittycardio 5y ago
Modern day "controversial" generally means idiot who wants intellectual cover to be a bigot. Trump supporters pretending to be Galileo lol
retsibsi 5y ago
> the seem to want to attract articles that are not mainstream because they are ethically and morally outrageous to most people (say bigotry, cruelty, eugenics, etc.) Some ideas are considered outrageous because people fail to distinguish between is and ought. I want to know what is true; I'm confident enough in my basic values that they won't crumble when faced with inconvenient empirical facts. Of course, the question of should this be published could have a different answer from should I bother reading this. Sometimes the gatekeepers aren't failing to distinguish between is and ought, they just don't trust others to make that distinction. Or at least, they don't trust enough others to make that distinction to prevent the information from doing serious harm. And sadly they may often be right.

by ausbah 5y ago

wittycardio 5y ago

Modern day "controversial" generally means idiot who wants intellectual cover to be a bigot. Trump supporters pretending to be Galileo lol

retsibsi 5y ago

> the seem to want to attract articles that are not mainstream because they are ethically and morally outrageous to most people (say bigotry, cruelty, eugenics, etc.) Some ideas are considered outrageous because people fail to distinguish between is and ought. I want to know what is true; I'm confident enough in my basic values that they won't crumble when faced with inconvenient empirical facts. Of course, the question of should this be published could have a different answer from should I bother reading this. Sometimes the gatekeepers aren't failing to distinguish between is and ought, they just don't trust others to make that distinction. Or at least, they don't trust enough others to make that distinction to prevent the information from doing serious harm. And sadly they may often be right.