Am not familiar with Noah Carl's work, but what I find "creepy" is the very long list of tenured academics writing a letter maligning a postdoc for wrongthink, as opposed to engaging with his work in a scholarly manner.https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1070766617305452544 …
-
Show this thread
-
How many academics on that list have actually looked at the methods sections of Noah Carl’s work? How many could confidently list its methodological limitations? I would guess a very small minority.
9 replies 16 retweets 254 likesShow this thread -
Instead students and academics have been “mobilised” to denounce a young scholar for being “creepy”. (
@davidgraeber’s words). This is not reasoned critique. It is activism. This is not how academia is supposed to work.6 replies 52 retweets 488 likesShow this thread -
Today I’m going to write to every single academic on that list asking them to identify the specific methodological limitations of Noah Carl’s work. And I will document their responses for the public record. If you care about academic freedom you should write to them too.
33 replies 76 retweets 838 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @clairlemon
that's easy. The concepts "race" "genetic intelligence" and "criminality" are all concepts with at best questionable scientific validity, so any study that assumes all 3 as unproblematic is so wildly methodologically flawed that one can only assume a racist motive in the author
55 replies 19 retweets 84 likes
extraordinary
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.