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 …
1/2 Hi @palmd if you see all of my comments/replies I hope you'll see that wasn't the case...I wasn't seeking to defend Sheldrake's research. I just didn't think Dr Gorski's use of "" to imply he wasn't real researcher was fair - i.e. we can still be sceptical of qualified people
-
-
2/2 without having to call into question/undermine their qualifications or previous record. When that happens I think it actually undermines scepticism, because it makes the impersonal personal & becomes an exercise in demeaning someone else - rather than their ideas/beliefs etc
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So you're "just asking questions" right?
-
No, I wasn't "just asking questions" - I was trying to raise a serious point about how we don't need to malign people's credentials/qualifications in order to be sceptical about their work or views (& I'm not looking to get into another bout of pointless conflict about it)
- Show replies
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.