7 ms·

She's not stating anything pseudoscientific, nor anything that has been debunked. Quite the opposite really. Her work is meticulously well researched and she ta

• cauch 3y ago
  The "their critics just did not understood/read the books" defense is usually a pretty bad sign. In all subjects, the majority is always rather "moderate", and if few persons twist the words, there is even more persons to consider that these interpretations are unfair, and emit more nuanced positions. If you end up having to systematically say that all her words are always twisted all the time by the majority of people not agreeing with her, it's way more probable that she indeed said things that were indeed controversial. Sometimes, people like her will indeed say something that is objectively controversial, then say something different, and then will point to the something different thing to try to discredit their detractors. Again, this is a red flag that means this person is not bringing anything of value to the debate (and again, if some elements are indeed of value, these elements can be brought forward by people not having these counter-productive and anti-intellectual behaviors). You say "her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpoints". But even looking at people who were rather positive about her books, the main critics that they had were that there was not much references, that there was a lot of anecdotal elements and that the view she brings is pretty one-sided. These elements from people who liked her books. So, reading your comments, you, random person on the internet, it looks like that what you explain is less compatible from the reality I observe somewhere else than the other commentator that you pretend is misguided (it does not mean this other commentator is right, but at least I see less clues that they are biased than clues that you are biased). Thank you from your contribution, you just reenforce the idea that there are people who will depict her work and position in a misguided manner.
  • fffs 3y ago
    If you're going to comment critically on her work, maybe it would be best for you to read it yourself and form your own evaluation? Seems rather odd for you to be expressing this incuriously critical opinion from such a position of ignorance.
    • cauch 3y ago
      Not sure of your logic. What I'm saying is not that I haven't read her work and made my own opinion on it. As a matter of fact, I have done so and I consider several elements of her reasoning as being pseudo-science (yeah, I know, you will say "then you did not understand", what a surprise). But of course, if I say "I have read her and consider she does pseudo-science", you can answer "then you are just politically biased: you say it is pseudo-science because you ideologically don't like the truth she is telling" and we are not moving at all. So, to avoid this impasse, my argument is rather: "you say 1) she never does pseudo-science, 2) her work is very rigorous, BUT even a bunch of people who are ideologically agreeing with her are saying that number 2 is incorrect". My point is that, based on the fact that you demonstrably twist the reality on point number 2, I cannot really trust you, and you appear as being the one biased. If you are the one biased, of course you will say that she never does pseudo-science. If you are biased, I cannot trust you to present the robustness of her work realistically. It does not mean it is the proof she is doing pseudo-science. The reason I think she is doing pseudo-science is because I have read her work. Finally, I would like to point out that the "every critics can only be liars, you have to read by yourself" is itself is a big red flag. In a normal, pro-intellectual world, an author will never say "you have read what my colleagues said about me, but this is worth nothing, you absolutely need to read yourself directly my work, every discussion about my work is somehow wrong" (this idea is obviously very stupid when one realises that the people that the author says don't know what they are talking about are people who read themselves directly the author's work in the first place). In a normal, pro-intellectual world, the best analysis of someone work is a mix of the author's work AND what other people think about it. Authors will be welcoming analysis of their work, because their work is of good quality, so these analyses have no reason to misrepresent the work. As I was saying in my first comment: the majority of the people are "neutral", they don't have any reason to go in a crazy fantasy that she is pseudo-scientific just for fun. The fact that she has a bad reputation is not due to fringe extremists, it is due to the fact that the majority of neutral people sees how she behaves and what she says. So far, people who are judging that the robustness of her work is really good always end up, what a strange coincidence, also agreeing with her on her opinion. If her work is robust, people who disagree with her will recognize that her work is robust. But here, it is the opposite, even some of people who agree with her opinion admit that her work is not that robust.
• mrkeen 3y ago
  > That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagination. If that's me, correct. Her line of reasoning is ... something about "starting a global conversation"? Being in the minority doesn't mean you have a point. Being censored doesn't mean that you have a point. Not being censored but arguing that you are censored doesn't mean you are censored or that you have a point. Arguing that not-being-censored is not evidence of being censored ("witch logic") doesn't mean you are censored or have a point. She could have used the space to make a point, so that readers wouldn't need to resort to imagining artefacts, but instead she told her audience that she's being held back from telling her audience stuff.