4 ms·

Not mentioned in the article, but pretty widely circulated in the astronomy community when it happened, is Avi's utterly disrespectful and frankly uncalled for

Not mentioned in the article, but pretty widely circulated in the astronomy community when it happened, is Avi's utterly disrespectful and frankly uncalled for vituperation onto Jill Tarter in response to her public criticism of his (self-demonstrating) Messiah complex: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/02/16/watch-harvard-astronomer-mansplains-seti-to-the-legend-who-inspired-carl-sagans-contact/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/02/16/watc... For those out of the loop, Jill Tarter is a SETI legend, who has dedicated her life's work to a principled search for extraterrestrial life, of exactly the kind that Avi has claimed to have been neglected by the scientific community (to obviously self-aggrandising effect). The arrogance here is just astounding. This man is a toxic and hypocritical bully, and this bad behaviour should not be rewarded even if he were correct (which, as the article describes, appears unlikely).

in_cahoots 3y ago
Ten minutes talking with this man single-handedly turned me off from attending Harvard grad school. Any environment that would promote him to (I believe) head of the department was not one I wanted to study in. Glad to see I made the right choice.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  Do you seriously think Harvard grad school is in some ways culturally that different from any of today’s schools ?
  - darthoctopus 3y ago
    anecdata, but at least in my grad school astro department (which will go unnamed) this kind of bullying behaviour would be, and actually was, called out and ostracised, rather than rewarded! granted, it took a whole year for the university to get its act together and do something about it…
    - in_cahoots 3y ago
      Yes, I remember there were a couple of prominent astro cases around the time I finished up my PhD. Glad to see that there was a good end result.
  - bannedbybros 3y ago
    [dead]
  - in_cahoots 3y ago
    Yes. I interviewed 10ish grad schools, and some were clearly more supportive than others. Either in terms of the personalities of professors, or in the policies around funding and graduation. I chose a school where I thought I would be happy as well as successful. And unlike many of my peers, I (and most of my cohort) graduated in a reasonable time without any of the horror stories so common in grad school.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      My introduction to my "assigned" undergrad faculty advisor (freshman year) was him sitting down the 6 students that were his, explaining to us what tenure was*, and then telling us never to contact him and to talk to his grad student instead. Somehow, I imagine he didn't treat his grad students much better. At the end of the day, individual faculty members and department standards make a huge difference. Mostly because faculty is too busy trying to make tenure or climb the political pole to dean to audit their colleagues. * I have family in academia, so started to grok where this was going at this point.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      I’m genuinely glad you stuck to those principles, and thank you for telling your story. These kinds of things need to be heard more often so others can feel confident they aren’t alone in having ethics and have confidence in pushing back.
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  As a bit of a joke (not to discount your very unpleasant experience) but most departments do not make their most productive and important members department chair! It’s more of a “someone has to do it and it’s your turn” situation. I’m saying this in part bc sometimes people outside of academia feel like “being department chair” means the person is super prestigious or well respected within the department or outside of it. Generally that’s not actually the case. It’s a bit of a demotion in terms of what academics care about. (Frequently it comes with a raise bc you need to offer a substantial carrot to get people to even take the position.)
  - in_cahoots 3y ago
    Haha, I actually can’t even remember who the head of my department was in grad school- or of any other place that I visited post-acceptance. Just goes to show how much this one interaction stood out in my mind.
adolph 3y ago
Thanks to hikingsimulator's link below, here is Loeb interacting with Tarter [0]. The entire video is worth listening to and the vlogger is refreshingly fair minded. 0. https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI?t=1890 https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI?t=1890
poisonarena 3y ago
I don't care about astronomy drama, but neither one of them found aliens, so no reason to have a chip on their shoulders in any case
bstockton 3y ago
Didn't really seem that vituperative to me. Seemed like he's really frustrated with a bunch of events tangentially related to Jill, gets emotional and could have been more respectful. I think he probably owes her an offline apology but I don't think this a reason to discount this man entirely.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
I don't believe Avi found aliens, and I don't even think finding aliens in our neighborhood is likely or will ever happen. With that being said, it takes balls to come up with such claims, and you need people arguing passionately against the mainstream opinion in any subject to properly judge what is the truth. A cautious position that is afraid to lay out the entire arguments and claims just won't do. And I don't even believe what he says - but I do believe that it is important for devil's advocates to fully embrace their position instead of chickening and trying to be cautious with evidence. (up to the point where the evidence really does contradict their position). And I fully believe him when he says he's bullied, and the other subtext I see in her question is that she envies him of his courage. Of having the balls to stand up for the subject that despite 40 years, she still has self doubts about. He doesn't seem nice or polite. But honestly, I can totally get why he's pissed off. She did not have the balls or courage to fight for her position with all that it takes, and instead of being glad someone else has the courage she was lacking, she attacks him. And even tho I don't believe him, I think having people with courage to stand up and argue against the consensus is incredibly important. Just like you need lawyers on both sides in litigation, it's not enough to just collect evidence. She did not advocate for her position for 40 years. She did collect evidence but that's not enough.
- corinroyal 3y ago
  It does not take "balls" to speculate wildly. Any grifter can do it, whether they have a uterus or not. Sensationalism is always easier than evidence-building. > I think having people with courage to stand up and argue against the consensus is incredibly important. I agree it would be nice if Loeb tried that. So far he hasn't made any arguments, just bloviated. And what "consensus" do you imagine Loeb is your champion against? Tarter is a pioneer carving out a new discipline, not the latest head of some ancient SETI cartel started by Aristotle. Any "consensus" is tentative at best. To hear Loeb speak, you would think it were he who started searching for techno-signatures forty years ago--with Tarter in a dominatrix outfit and a whip waylaying him at every step. He yelled over her, refused to let her speak, misrepresented her arguments, and tarred a diverse research community with a broad brush. Nobody made him show his own ass on Zoom. That was his choice. By contrast Tarter was polite, gracious, and statesman-like. She defended her colleagues clearly and let the clown dig his own grave. Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. If I were one of the researchers she were defending, I would be proud to have her up there representing me, and certainly glad I wasn't the one who was asked to find time in my research schedule to act as some narcissist's punching bag for an hour so he can build his social media viewership. Loeb is just another science grifter who pumps up bad ideas with hot air in order to make some post-truth money off rubes who watch Joe Rogan--where making wild and evidence-free claims made with a flourish of performative masculinity beat decades of careful research.

in_cahoots 3y ago

Ten minutes talking with this man single-handedly turned me off from attending Harvard grad school. Any environment that would promote him to (I believe) head of the department was not one I wanted to study in. Glad to see I made the right choice.

ramraj07 3y ago
Do you seriously think Harvard grad school is in some ways culturally that different from any of today’s schools ?
- darthoctopus 3y ago
  anecdata, but at least in my grad school astro department (which will go unnamed) this kind of bullying behaviour would be, and actually was, called out and ostracised, rather than rewarded! granted, it took a whole year for the university to get its act together and do something about it…
  - in_cahoots 3y ago
    Yes, I remember there were a couple of prominent astro cases around the time I finished up my PhD. Glad to see that there was a good end result.
- bannedbybros 3y ago
  [dead]
- in_cahoots 3y ago
  Yes. I interviewed 10ish grad schools, and some were clearly more supportive than others. Either in terms of the personalities of professors, or in the policies around funding and graduation. I chose a school where I thought I would be happy as well as successful. And unlike many of my peers, I (and most of my cohort) graduated in a reasonable time without any of the horror stories so common in grad school.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    My introduction to my "assigned" undergrad faculty advisor (freshman year) was him sitting down the 6 students that were his, explaining to us what tenure was*, and then telling us never to contact him and to talk to his grad student instead. Somehow, I imagine he didn't treat his grad students much better. At the end of the day, individual faculty members and department standards make a huge difference. Mostly because faculty is too busy trying to make tenure or climb the political pole to dean to audit their colleagues. * I have family in academia, so started to grok where this was going at this point.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I’m genuinely glad you stuck to those principles, and thank you for telling your story. These kinds of things need to be heard more often so others can feel confident they aren’t alone in having ethics and have confidence in pushing back.
huitzitziltzin 3y ago
As a bit of a joke (not to discount your very unpleasant experience) but most departments do not make their most productive and important members department chair! It’s more of a “someone has to do it and it’s your turn” situation. I’m saying this in part bc sometimes people outside of academia feel like “being department chair” means the person is super prestigious or well respected within the department or outside of it. Generally that’s not actually the case. It’s a bit of a demotion in terms of what academics care about. (Frequently it comes with a raise bc you need to offer a substantial carrot to get people to even take the position.)
- in_cahoots 3y ago
  Haha, I actually can’t even remember who the head of my department was in grad school- or of any other place that I visited post-acceptance. Just goes to show how much this one interaction stood out in my mind.

adolph 3y ago

Thanks to hikingsimulator's link below, here is Loeb interacting with Tarter [0]. The entire video is worth listening to and the vlogger is refreshingly fair minded. 0. https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI?t=1890 https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI?t=1890

poisonarena 3y ago

I don't care about astronomy drama, but neither one of them found aliens, so no reason to have a chip on their shoulders in any case

bstockton 3y ago

Didn't really seem that vituperative to me. Seemed like he's really frustrated with a bunch of events tangentially related to Jill, gets emotional and could have been more respectful. I think he probably owes her an offline apology but I don't think this a reason to discount this man entirely.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

I don't believe Avi found aliens, and I don't even think finding aliens in our neighborhood is likely or will ever happen. With that being said, it takes balls to come up with such claims, and you need people arguing passionately against the mainstream opinion in any subject to properly judge what is the truth. A cautious position that is afraid to lay out the entire arguments and claims just won't do. And I don't even believe what he says - but I do believe that it is important for devil's advocates to fully embrace their position instead of chickening and trying to be cautious with evidence. (up to the point where the evidence really does contradict their position). And I fully believe him when he says he's bullied, and the other subtext I see in her question is that she envies him of his courage. Of having the balls to stand up for the subject that despite 40 years, she still has self doubts about. He doesn't seem nice or polite. But honestly, I can totally get why he's pissed off. She did not have the balls or courage to fight for her position with all that it takes, and instead of being glad someone else has the courage she was lacking, she attacks him. And even tho I don't believe him, I think having people with courage to stand up and argue against the consensus is incredibly important. Just like you need lawyers on both sides in litigation, it's not enough to just collect evidence. She did not advocate for her position for 40 years. She did collect evidence but that's not enough.

corinroyal 3y ago
It does not take "balls" to speculate wildly. Any grifter can do it, whether they have a uterus or not. Sensationalism is always easier than evidence-building. > I think having people with courage to stand up and argue against the consensus is incredibly important. I agree it would be nice if Loeb tried that. So far he hasn't made any arguments, just bloviated. And what "consensus" do you imagine Loeb is your champion against? Tarter is a pioneer carving out a new discipline, not the latest head of some ancient SETI cartel started by Aristotle. Any "consensus" is tentative at best. To hear Loeb speak, you would think it were he who started searching for techno-signatures forty years ago--with Tarter in a dominatrix outfit and a whip waylaying him at every step. He yelled over her, refused to let her speak, misrepresented her arguments, and tarred a diverse research community with a broad brush. Nobody made him show his own ass on Zoom. That was his choice. By contrast Tarter was polite, gracious, and statesman-like. She defended her colleagues clearly and let the clown dig his own grave. Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. If I were one of the researchers she were defending, I would be proud to have her up there representing me, and certainly glad I wasn't the one who was asked to find time in my research schedule to act as some narcissist's punching bag for an hour so he can build his social media viewership. Loeb is just another science grifter who pumps up bad ideas with hot air in order to make some post-truth money off rubes who watch Joe Rogan--where making wild and evidence-free claims made with a flourish of performative masculinity beat decades of careful research.