11 ms·

Astronomer withdraws paper amid concerns

10 points by civilized 5y ago

retrac 5y ago
> "But intentions, in the end, do not matter." Nonsense. I'm getting a little alarmed by the pro forma recitation of this doctrine.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
civilized 5y ago
More detail on the Kormendy controversy: 1. Archive copy of withdrawn paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20211028230225/https:/arxiv.org/pdf/2110.14115.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20211028230225/https:/arxiv.org/... 2. Coverage at Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/03/astronomer-apologizes-withdraws-preprint-slated-for-pnas-about-impact-in-the-field-after-criticism/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/03/astronomer-apologizes... "The book required 5 years of intense, essentially full-time work. I believe in it. But for now, all advice to me has been that it is dangerous and unwarranted even to defend the work. I therefore am unable to comment further on events. I am sorry — more than words can say." -- Kormendy 3. Kormendy's Apology: https://chandra.as.utexas.edu/apology.html https://chandra.as.utexas.edu/apology.html "I apologize most humbly and sincerely for the stress that I have caused with the PNAS preprint, the PNAS paper, and my book on using metrics of research impact to help to inform decisions on career advancement. My goal was entirely supportive. I wanted to promote fairness and concreteness in judgments that now are based uncomfortably on personal opinion. I wanted to contribute to a climate that favors good science and good citizenship. My work was intended to be helpful, not harmful. It was intended to decrease bias and to improve fairness. It was hoped to favor inclusivity. It was especially intended to help us all to do the best science that we can. A specific aim was to provide calibration of the "black box" of jump-starting successful research careers. One of my aims throughout was to help young people as they start their careers and to help established scientists as they make decisions on how to lead the scientific enterprise at their institutions and beyond. But intentions do not, in the end, matter. What matters is what my actions achieve. And I now see that my work has hurt people. I apologize to you all for the stress and the pain that I have caused. Nothing could be further from my hopes. The PNAS paper and arXiv preprint have been withdrawn as thoroughly as the publication system allows. The arXiv withdrawal is accepted by arXiv and appears in the posting for Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. The same may be the fate of the book. I hoped to generate healthy discussion and to provide practical aids. We will see in the coming few months whether any good can be salvaged from its development. Meanwhile, publication of the book is "on hold". I fully support all efforts to promote fairness, inclusivity, and a nurturing environment for all. Only in such an environment can people and creativity thrive."
h2odragon 5y ago
Can some explain this guy's Sin in short words for me please? Suggesting the application of metrics to hiring in scientific employment? Suggesting that this metric be used instead of another? Could he have discussed the subject in a different way and avoided being shunned by his discipline?
- twofornone 5y ago
  The sin is meritocracy. Any system which does not achieve equality of outcome is broken in the eyes of the woke. And they spread their views by bullying people who mostly don't fight back, like this astronomer. It's important to note that he wasn't shunned by his discipline, only a loud untouchable minority. Some animals are more equal than others, after all.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Can someone explain why sibling comment is flagged into oblivion? Is there any sound evidence that meritocracy and "equity" are compatible? If not, I don't see why sibling comment's position is false, and I don't see how it breaks site guidelines either.
  - dang 5y ago
    If you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720, it is clearly an ideological battle comment (almost a prototype actually) and therefore obviously against the site guidelines. We want curious conversation here. Not only do ideological battle and curiosity not overlap, the former destroys the latter, like a tank battle in a city park. If people can't post in the intended curious spirit, they shouldn't post at all; and if they do anyway, flags are the appropriate outcome—no? I'm not sure why this would be unclear.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      The article is about a scientist who was pressured into retracting a paper over ideological reasons rather than scientific reasons. It would be understandable if HN were opposed to posts and comments that "do ideological battle," but that doesn't appear to be the case. If HN's editorial policy is that "ideological battle" may be waged with impunity by one side but may not be called out by the other, that's deeply troubling. How can there be curious conversation if an honest and frank discussion is disallowed? There's a huge social upheaval occurring, with a large number of people trying to change the status quo to focus on equity in outcome over equality in opportunity. I respectfully disagree with the idea that selectively stifling speech on just one side of that discussion will somehow make discussion more curious and open, instead of less.
dekhn 5y ago
The astronomer made a mistake here and the article should not have been retracted.

10 points by civilized 5y ago

> "But intentions, in the end, do not matter." Nonsense. I'm getting a little alarmed by the pro forma recitation of this doctrine.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

civilized 5y ago

More detail on the Kormendy controversy: 1. Archive copy of withdrawn paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20211028230225/https:/arxiv.org/pdf/2110.14115.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20211028230225/https:/arxiv.org/... 2. Coverage at Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/03/astronomer-apologizes-withdraws-preprint-slated-for-pnas-about-impact-in-the-field-after-criticism/ https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/03/astronomer-apologizes... "The book required 5 years of intense, essentially full-time work. I believe in it. But for now, all advice to me has been that it is dangerous and unwarranted even to defend the work. I therefore am unable to comment further on events. I am sorry — more than words can say." -- Kormendy 3. Kormendy's Apology: https://chandra.as.utexas.edu/apology.html https://chandra.as.utexas.edu/apology.html "I apologize most humbly and sincerely for the stress that I have caused with the PNAS preprint, the PNAS paper, and my book on using metrics of research impact to help to inform decisions on career advancement. My goal was entirely supportive. I wanted to promote fairness and concreteness in judgments that now are based uncomfortably on personal opinion. I wanted to contribute to a climate that favors good science and good citizenship. My work was intended to be helpful, not harmful. It was intended to decrease bias and to improve fairness. It was hoped to favor inclusivity. It was especially intended to help us all to do the best science that we can. A specific aim was to provide calibration of the "black box" of jump-starting successful research careers. One of my aims throughout was to help young people as they start their careers and to help established scientists as they make decisions on how to lead the scientific enterprise at their institutions and beyond. But intentions do not, in the end, matter. What matters is what my actions achieve. And I now see that my work has hurt people. I apologize to you all for the stress and the pain that I have caused. Nothing could be further from my hopes. The PNAS paper and arXiv preprint have been withdrawn as thoroughly as the publication system allows. The arXiv withdrawal is accepted by arXiv and appears in the posting for Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. The same may be the fate of the book. I hoped to generate healthy discussion and to provide practical aids. We will see in the coming few months whether any good can be salvaged from its development. Meanwhile, publication of the book is "on hold". I fully support all efforts to promote fairness, inclusivity, and a nurturing environment for all. Only in such an environment can people and creativity thrive."

h2odragon 5y ago

Can some explain this guy's Sin in short words for me please? Suggesting the application of metrics to hiring in scientific employment? Suggesting that this metric be used instead of another? Could he have discussed the subject in a different way and avoided being shunned by his discipline?

twofornone 5y ago
The sin is meritocracy. Any system which does not achieve equality of outcome is broken in the eyes of the woke. And they spread their views by bullying people who mostly don't fight back, like this astronomer. It's important to note that he wasn't shunned by his discipline, only a loud untouchable minority. Some animals are more equal than others, after all.
torstenvl 5y ago
Can someone explain why sibling comment is flagged into oblivion? Is there any sound evidence that meritocracy and "equity" are compatible? If not, I don't see why sibling comment's position is false, and I don't see how it breaks site guidelines either.
- dang 5y ago
  If you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720, it is clearly an ideological battle comment (almost a prototype actually) and therefore obviously against the site guidelines. We want curious conversation here. Not only do ideological battle and curiosity not overlap, the former destroys the latter, like a tank battle in a city park. If people can't post in the intended curious spirit, they shouldn't post at all; and if they do anyway, flags are the appropriate outcome—no? I'm not sure why this would be unclear.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    The article is about a scientist who was pressured into retracting a paper over ideological reasons rather than scientific reasons. It would be understandable if HN were opposed to posts and comments that "do ideological battle," but that doesn't appear to be the case. If HN's editorial policy is that "ideological battle" may be waged with impunity by one side but may not be called out by the other, that's deeply troubling. How can there be curious conversation if an honest and frank discussion is disallowed? There's a huge social upheaval occurring, with a large number of people trying to change the status quo to focus on equity in outcome over equality in opportunity. I respectfully disagree with the idea that selectively stifling speech on just one side of that discussion will somehow make discussion more curious and open, instead of less.

dekhn 5y ago

The astronomer made a mistake here and the article should not have been retracted.