All you need to know about how bad a take this article is is that the author cites Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin as "researchers" who, according to him, were treated unfairly by Randi, while he characterizes @GSoW_team as waging a "freewheeling digital jihad on Wikipedia."
https://twitter.com/MitchHorowitz/status/1320836372257714176 …
Bad research doesn't necessarily discount their legitimacy as "real researchers," but embrace of pseudoscience does.https://newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra …
-
-
You still aren't answering my question or addressing my point...and posting this article does neither
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, now you are retro-actively "shifting the goal posts" as to what does and doesn't infer legitimacy upon a researcher. Previously you said it was because of his "trash" research into pseudoscience, and now you are stating it is simply because he embraces it...
-
So, in line with your latest "definition" of what negates legitimacy, if Einstein or Hawking's had ever dared to "embrace" a topic you deem to be pseudoscientific you would no longer have viewed them as "real researchers" or "actual experts"?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Cites an opinion piece by Jerry Coyne

-
Not really saying anything about Sheldrake but JC is awful and promotes anti-science bigotry and using him as any legitimate voice for science promotion while ignoring that fact, isn't a good look
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.