4 ms·

By publishing their science in academic journals rather than twitter.

beached_whale 4y ago
This is it. The conclusions should match the weight of the evidence being written about, and that of existing papers. This can be seen with semi-recent FTL neutrino experiment… it was probably a faulty cable. There are often many reasons for counter evidence that explain it better than changing the current understandings. That has to be worked through first, and isn’t a headline grabbing process.
pcl 4y ago
Rather than twitter ads, in the case at hand.
istinetz 4y ago
Hypothetically: a study finds racial differences in intelligence, or something equally taboo. Do you really believe an esteemed journal would actually publish it? Or would they find a reason to politely decline, such as "it's out of scope", "didn't pass peer review", "doesn't align with out values, reword"? Do you believe, even if the study is published, that it would not destroy someone's career? And finally, if researchers believe there is a chance of that happening, would they actually start to investigate the taboo area? My answer to all these questions is "no". This is why when you say, "just publish in academic journals", I am highly skeptical. And why I am annoyed at yet another example of the social media oligarchy enforcing what ideas are allowed to propagate.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  This is a silly hypothetical for a number of reasons. 1. There are a million reasons it could be rejected. For one thing, we have decades if not centuries of terrible science here, motivated by even worse agendas. A journal is going to be extremely skeptical of any study in this area for that same reason, and they would be for anything much less controversial that had centuries of garbage behind it. 2. Science is not morally exempt. A journal may ask themselves if the scientific implications of this paper are worth the practical implications of supporting the work at that stage - that's going to depend a LOT on the paper itself, and since this is a hypothetical, we have no way of discussing this point. > Do you believe, even if the study is published, that it would not destroy someone's career? I don't know, maybe? Again, it's a hypothetical. What is this paper showing? Who is it by? There's so much context missing here. I'd certainly think whoever did this research, with no other context, is probably an idiot, but I could be convinced otherwise. > And finally, if researchers believe there is a chance of that happening, would they actually start to investigate the taboo area? Maybe? Like, yeah, good point, I would definitely question the motives of anyone doing this research. But this is a hypothetical so it's impossible to say. > My answer to all these questions is "no". Given this extremely broad hypothetical it seems pretty absurd to answer any way definitively. Regardless, this in no way supports the idea that the research rejected by journals is somehow fit for Twitter ads. It is, at best, a criticism of journals, without any comment on what the right solution would be. The idea that advertising on Twitter is somehow the bandaid we need for purported issues with scientific peer review is absolutely fucking laughable and I think people on HN should seriously question the competency of the average user here.
  - istinetz 4y ago
    >people on HN should seriously question the competency of the average user here. Intentionally miss my point, misrepresent my claim, insult me in the last sentence. Nice.
    - staticassertion 4y ago
- sadris 4y ago
  Behold, exactly what you are talking about: https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/positively-motivated-to-help-all?s=r https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/positively-motivated-to-he...
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    Emil Kirkegaard? That's your example? Did you dig that out not knowing who he is, or did you post it with full knowledge of who he was, hoping HNers wouldn't actually look at who he is? For those who aren't aware: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard > Emil Ole William Kirkegaard is a Danish far-right eugenicist, perjurer[3] and activist for legalising child pornography. He has a wide range of crank views and is a global-warming denier, anti-feminist, ableist, anti-vegan, homophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe and has promoted white supremacy. He is most notorious and obnoxious online for his ableism and calling transgender people, liberals, feminists and pretty much anyone with left-wing political views who merely disagrees with him as "mentally ill". > Aside from his controversial writings on eugenics and race, Kirkegaard has been involved in other activities such as publishing personal data of 70,000 OKCupid users without permission, including their sexual preferences,[10] considered by Vox to be "without a doubt one of the most grossly unprofessional, unethical and reprehensible data releases".[11] His writings on race and intelligence[12] have caused controversy and because peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish his work, he set up the OpenPsych pseudojournals.[13] However, after this journal was discredited he now publishes pseudo-scientific race articles in the open-access Psych journal.[14][15] [...] > His highest qualification is a Bachelor’s in linguistics. Having dropped out of his Masters degree, instead preferring to be "self-taught in various subjects" [...] > Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as "Is miscegenation bad for your kids?" and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy
    - istinetz 4y ago
      I read the entire rationalwiki page on him, and followed the links to the primary sources, and I learned the following: a) whoever wrote the wiki really doesn't like him. A lot of the claims about him are a stretch. b) he does make some good points
- aeturnum 4y ago
  > Do you really believe an esteemed journal would actually publish it? You seem to be forwarding an idea of an information ecosystem where what is an "esteemed" journal is static. Like you cannot imagine Nature being anything but the top journal - so Nature must publish works they find suspect because otherwise nothing will change. Frankly, that's not how anything works. Groups of people organize around beliefs and there is a relatively stable (but shifting) understanding of the prestige of those organizations. Look at, for instance, the understanding around the stonewall riot / protest (depending on who is describing it). If these heterodox views are correct (and for the record I think the race 'science' that claims to show non-white people consistently test below white folks is obviously and embarrassingly wrong. I encourage you to check out this critique of the bell curve[1]) then they will, over time, become more and more accepted and their articles in "alternative" journals will be key in that process. The way that previously alternative views have come to the center is that they were published in their own "fringe" publications for years - and then, over time, as those view were more and more accepted, the papers start appearing in 'mainstream' publications. The "years in the wilderness" is a feature not a bug! You have to let subaltern movements develop their own ideas and voice outside of the mainstream to see if they really have a substantial critique of the mainstream - because inevitably any real critique involves getting the mainstream to let go of one or more central axiom of their worldview. If you are serious about supporting these ideas (and I really hope you are using 'race science' as an attention grabbing flash point rather than a thing you believe), you really should start talking about them like you're aware of the history of how previously controversial ideas become mainstream. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo
  - istinetz 4y ago
    half your comment is spent debunking my "claim". You cannot even discuss discussing taboo ideas. >The "years in the wilderness" is a feature not a bug! You just invented that. Never have I heard a suggestion that for a new theory to become mainstream, you must first create a new fringe journal that can exceed the existing journals in reputation. In fact, I can think of several examples of brand new findings that upended the mainstream that were published directly in Nature or Science. You literally just invented this entire process just to give a reason why politically taboo ideas are unpublishable.

This is it. The conclusions should match the weight of the evidence being written about, and that of existing papers. This can be seen with semi-recent FTL neutrino experiment… it was probably a faulty cable. There are often many reasons for counter evidence that explain it better than changing the current understandings. That has to be worked through first, and isn’t a headline grabbing process.

pcl 4y ago

Rather than twitter ads, in the case at hand.

istinetz 4y ago

Hypothetically: a study finds racial differences in intelligence, or something equally taboo. Do you really believe an esteemed journal would actually publish it? Or would they find a reason to politely decline, such as "it's out of scope", "didn't pass peer review", "doesn't align with out values, reword"? Do you believe, even if the study is published, that it would not destroy someone's career? And finally, if researchers believe there is a chance of that happening, would they actually start to investigate the taboo area? My answer to all these questions is "no". This is why when you say, "just publish in academic journals", I am highly skeptical. And why I am annoyed at yet another example of the social media oligarchy enforcing what ideas are allowed to propagate.

staticassertion 4y ago
This is a silly hypothetical for a number of reasons. 1. There are a million reasons it could be rejected. For one thing, we have decades if not centuries of terrible science here, motivated by even worse agendas. A journal is going to be extremely skeptical of any study in this area for that same reason, and they would be for anything much less controversial that had centuries of garbage behind it. 2. Science is not morally exempt. A journal may ask themselves if the scientific implications of this paper are worth the practical implications of supporting the work at that stage - that's going to depend a LOT on the paper itself, and since this is a hypothetical, we have no way of discussing this point. > Do you believe, even if the study is published, that it would not destroy someone's career? I don't know, maybe? Again, it's a hypothetical. What is this paper showing? Who is it by? There's so much context missing here. I'd certainly think whoever did this research, with no other context, is probably an idiot, but I could be convinced otherwise. > And finally, if researchers believe there is a chance of that happening, would they actually start to investigate the taboo area? Maybe? Like, yeah, good point, I would definitely question the motives of anyone doing this research. But this is a hypothetical so it's impossible to say. > My answer to all these questions is "no". Given this extremely broad hypothetical it seems pretty absurd to answer any way definitively. Regardless, this in no way supports the idea that the research rejected by journals is somehow fit for Twitter ads. It is, at best, a criticism of journals, without any comment on what the right solution would be. The idea that advertising on Twitter is somehow the bandaid we need for purported issues with scientific peer review is absolutely fucking laughable and I think people on HN should seriously question the competency of the average user here.
- istinetz 4y ago
  >people on HN should seriously question the competency of the average user here. Intentionally miss my point, misrepresent my claim, insult me in the last sentence. Nice.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
sadris 4y ago
Behold, exactly what you are talking about: https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/positively-motivated-to-help-all?s=r https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/positively-motivated-to-he...
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Emil Kirkegaard? That's your example? Did you dig that out not knowing who he is, or did you post it with full knowledge of who he was, hoping HNers wouldn't actually look at who he is? For those who aren't aware: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard > Emil Ole William Kirkegaard is a Danish far-right eugenicist, perjurer[3] and activist for legalising child pornography. He has a wide range of crank views and is a global-warming denier, anti-feminist, ableist, anti-vegan, homophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe and has promoted white supremacy. He is most notorious and obnoxious online for his ableism and calling transgender people, liberals, feminists and pretty much anyone with left-wing political views who merely disagrees with him as "mentally ill". > Aside from his controversial writings on eugenics and race, Kirkegaard has been involved in other activities such as publishing personal data of 70,000 OKCupid users without permission, including their sexual preferences,[10] considered by Vox to be "without a doubt one of the most grossly unprofessional, unethical and reprehensible data releases".[11] His writings on race and intelligence[12] have caused controversy and because peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish his work, he set up the OpenPsych pseudojournals.[13] However, after this journal was discredited he now publishes pseudo-scientific race articles in the open-access Psych journal.[14][15] [...] > His highest qualification is a Bachelor’s in linguistics. Having dropped out of his Masters degree, instead preferring to be "self-taught in various subjects" [...] > Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as "Is miscegenation bad for your kids?" and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy
  - istinetz 4y ago
    I read the entire rationalwiki page on him, and followed the links to the primary sources, and I learned the following: a) whoever wrote the wiki really doesn't like him. A lot of the claims about him are a stretch. b) he does make some good points
aeturnum 4y ago
> Do you really believe an esteemed journal would actually publish it? You seem to be forwarding an idea of an information ecosystem where what is an "esteemed" journal is static. Like you cannot imagine Nature being anything but the top journal - so Nature must publish works they find suspect because otherwise nothing will change. Frankly, that's not how anything works. Groups of people organize around beliefs and there is a relatively stable (but shifting) understanding of the prestige of those organizations. Look at, for instance, the understanding around the stonewall riot / protest (depending on who is describing it). If these heterodox views are correct (and for the record I think the race 'science' that claims to show non-white people consistently test below white folks is obviously and embarrassingly wrong. I encourage you to check out this critique of the bell curve[1]) then they will, over time, become more and more accepted and their articles in "alternative" journals will be key in that process. The way that previously alternative views have come to the center is that they were published in their own "fringe" publications for years - and then, over time, as those view were more and more accepted, the papers start appearing in 'mainstream' publications. The "years in the wilderness" is a feature not a bug! You have to let subaltern movements develop their own ideas and voice outside of the mainstream to see if they really have a substantial critique of the mainstream - because inevitably any real critique involves getting the mainstream to let go of one or more central axiom of their worldview. If you are serious about supporting these ideas (and I really hope you are using 'race science' as an attention grabbing flash point rather than a thing you believe), you really should start talking about them like you're aware of the history of how previously controversial ideas become mainstream. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo
- istinetz 4y ago
  half your comment is spent debunking my "claim". You cannot even discuss discussing taboo ideas. >The "years in the wilderness" is a feature not a bug! You just invented that. Never have I heard a suggestion that for a new theory to become mainstream, you must first create a new fringe journal that can exceed the existing journals in reputation. In fact, I can think of several examples of brand new findings that upended the mainstream that were published directly in Nature or Science. You literally just invented this entire process just to give a reason why politically taboo ideas are unpublishable.