No. They can publish as many bad articles as they want, & I lose reputation each time I try to review them. Effective Gish Gallop strategyhttps://twitter.com/Mjreard/status/865226628527468544 …
-
-
Replying to @mattyglesias @johndbro1
Your own institution's article basically admits he was right about four out of five things, although it does its best to downplay it.
3 replies 3 retweets 37 likes -
On fifth thing, I agree Vox found ppl who disagree with him, but he represents majority scientific position. See eghttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/ …
5 replies 2 retweets 21 likes -
perhaps people who are very interested in racial IQ differences and devote their career to them have certain biases that affect their work?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mtsw @slatestarcodex and
Few of those surveyed have defended hereditarian views in publications. There's long been this weird public-private discrepancy in the field
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @pnin1957 @slatestarcodex and
again, people who choose to work in this particular field are not a random sample of scientists and intellectuals
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's exactly what global warming denialists say about climatologists.Heck, could be applied to any field.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slatestarcodex @pnin1957 and
at least in that they ask us to draw strong conclusions about systems too complex (intelligence, climate) to correctly model to that level
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think people "model" intelligence in the same sense as they "model" climate, and even climate predictions are based on past.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
IE it takes some faith in climate "models" to believe exact future predictions, but even without models, strong support for AGW thesis.
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.