5 ms·

I'm surprised mention of David Gelertner hasn't come up at all. He is a computer scientist who was attack by Ted kaczynski. He is an interesting person.

by paiute 3y ago

dredmorbius 3y ago
What might you have to say about him that's of interest? (It's generally more interesting to contribute to the conversation you find lacking or underrepresented then to meta-comment on it. I do this (contributing, not meta-comment) frequently myself.)
DonHopkins 3y ago
It's "interesting" that he pushes Intelligent Design, denies climate change, supports Donald Trump, and defends birtherism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter#Positions_on_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter#Positions_on_s... The Washington Post, profiling him in early 2017 as a potential science advisor to Donald Trump, called Gelernter "a vehement critic of modern academia" who has "condemned 'belligerent leftists' and blamed intellectualism for the disintegration of patriotism and traditional family values."[29] Shortly thereafter, The Atlantic published a rebuttal of The Washington Post profile, saying it was "hard to imagine a more misleading treatment" of the "pioneering polymath" Gelernter.[30] Gelernter has "expressed skepticism about the reality" of anthropogenic climate change,"[31][32] rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus in the field.[33] In July 2019, in a review of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, which Gelernter wrote for the Claremont Review of Books, he also rejected the scientific consensus of evolutionary biology.[34] On the other hand, Gelernter stipulates he "cannot accept" intelligent design either, saying that "as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go."[35] In "A Response to David Gelernter's Attack on Evolution", Patheos, August 26, 2019, Bob Seidensticker writes: "Let's subtitle this story, 'Guy who made his career in not-biology is convinced by other not-biologists that Biology's core theory is wrong.'"[36] Computer scientist and mathematician Jeffrey Shallit wrote: "Gelernter's review was not published in a science journal, but in a politics journal run by a far-right think tank. His review cites no scientific publications at all, and makes claims like 'Many biologists agree' and 'Most biologists think' without giving any supporting citations. So, not surprisingly ... Gelernter makes a fool of himself in his review, which resembles a 'greatest hits' of creationist misconceptions and lies."[37] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/unabomber-couldnt-kill-gelernter https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/una... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/david-gelernter-donald-trump-why-liberals-hate-trump-op-ed.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/david-gelernter-...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

I'm surprised mention of David Gelertner hasn't come up at all. He is a computer scientist who was attack by Ted kaczynski. He is an interesting person.

by paiute 3y ago

I'm surprised mention of David Gelertner hasn't come up at all. He is a computer scientist who was attack by Ted kaczynski. He is an interesting person.

dredmorbius 3y ago

What might you have to say about him that's of interest? (It's generally more interesting to contribute to the conversation you find lacking or underrepresented then to meta-comment on it. I do this (contributing, not meta-comment) frequently myself.)

DonHopkins 3y ago

It's "interesting" that he pushes Intelligent Design, denies climate change, supports Donald Trump, and defends birtherism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter#Positions_on_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter#Positions_on_s... The Washington Post, profiling him in early 2017 as a potential science advisor to Donald Trump, called Gelernter "a vehement critic of modern academia" who has "condemned 'belligerent leftists' and blamed intellectualism for the disintegration of patriotism and traditional family values."[29] Shortly thereafter, The Atlantic published a rebuttal of The Washington Post profile, saying it was "hard to imagine a more misleading treatment" of the "pioneering polymath" Gelernter.[30] Gelernter has "expressed skepticism about the reality" of anthropogenic climate change,"[31][32] rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus in the field.[33] In July 2019, in a review of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, which Gelernter wrote for the Claremont Review of Books, he also rejected the scientific consensus of evolutionary biology.[34] On the other hand, Gelernter stipulates he "cannot accept" intelligent design either, saying that "as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go."[35] In "A Response to David Gelernter's Attack on Evolution", Patheos, August 26, 2019, Bob Seidensticker writes: "Let's subtitle this story, 'Guy who made his career in not-biology is convinced by other not-biologists that Biology's core theory is wrong.'"[36] Computer scientist and mathematician Jeffrey Shallit wrote: "Gelernter's review was not published in a science journal, but in a politics journal run by a far-right think tank. His review cites no scientific publications at all, and makes claims like 'Many biologists agree' and 'Most biologists think' without giving any supporting citations. So, not surprisingly ... Gelernter makes a fool of himself in his review, which resembles a 'greatest hits' of creationist misconceptions and lies."[37] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/unabomber-couldnt-kill-gelernter https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/una... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/david-gelernter-donald-trump-why-liberals-hate-trump-op-ed.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/david-gelernter-...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]