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
-
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?
-
-
This is the issue that initially made me so uncomfortable with Bo's firing. I want these decisions to be in the hands of academic peers, not admins and public perceptions. On that topic though, can you weigh in on the vilification of entire academic fields (e.g., gender studies)?
-
I've been very critical of some academic fields, but I've never called for individual researchers in those fields to be fired. Big difference.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Peer review is an editor's trick to avoid embarrassment, due to bad science or politically incorrect science. Who chooses the 'peers'? Open data & replication are the way to go.
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.