ok, that is informative and much more substantial than calling him 'not accredited.' I appreciate the clarification. That his writings are unscientific, and t

ok, that is informative and much more substantial than calling him 'not accredited.' I appreciate the clarification. That his writings are unscientific, and that the accredited professionals who were his coauthors have lost tenure from Oxford when an old email from the FHI Bostrom used a racial slur and claimed Black people were intellectually inferior and his 'apology' included a defense of eugenics that deeply alarmed the university community and triggered a formal investigation, are two details not immediately visible from a brief review of his published opinions. These are far more damning indictments than simply categorization of the author as lacking in formal education. Thank you for the opportunity to look more deeply at the situation and come an understanding of the consequences of taking his writings seriously.