So uh... I read the actual paper. "Human populations" = race and "cognitive differences" = intelligence. Wow. I honestly can't believe that PAID published this.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920301045 …
Show this thread
-
I think that pre-tenure faculty are (and should) be evaluated on the merits of their research, teaching, and mentoring. If this is the sort of scholarly work that a person is putting out, I can easily see them not clearing that bar.
Do you think judging the merits of scholarly work should include ideological evaluations of whether the work violates current cultural taboos or strays outside the Overton Window? If so, that's no real defense of academic freedom, is it?
-
-
They should not. They should be evaluated on rigor. But loose logic and weak data in support of ideological positions is a particularly dangerous brand of pseudoscience that we need to guard against (I assume you would agree, at least for left-wing claims).
-
I guess the key question is whether we trust peer review wrt rigor, logic, and data. If experts approve a journal publication, should non-experts & admins have the right to discount it just bc they think it's pseudoscience? Like, if they're dubious about climate change?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I know this seems like a trap, but I'm just trying to understand ppl's pov. Please take this as an honest question: Would you be equally outraged if a bio dept let go an evo biologist who started publishing & promoting creationism or intelligent design?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.