Wow, you're actually serious. Lol. The graph in that opinion piece is not a definition. You do like ranting about leftists, which explains why you defend an agenda driven load of horseshit.
The article presents a strong and assertive stance on the significance of merit in liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. It highlights the scientific enterprise as the epitome of merit-based progress and credits it with numerous positive outcomes for society. However, it fails to substantiate its claims with specific evidence or examples, relying instead on broad statements and sweeping generalizations.
Furthermore, the article's portrayal of non-scientific, politically motivated criteria as a threat to merit lacks nuance and fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in decision-making processes. By dismissing alternative perspectives as solely driven by ideology, it oversimplifies and undermines potential valid critiques or considerations outside of the scientific realm.
The article's characterization of an "intrusion of ideology" into scientific institutions could benefit from a more rigorous analysis of the dynamics at play. It should acknowledge that scientific research is not immune to biases and external influences, and exploring these influences in a more nuanced manner could provide a more balanced perspective.
Additionally, the article's proposal of a human-centered alternative approach to address social inequalities lacks specificity. It does not sufficiently explain how this alternative approach differs from the existing paradigm or how it can effectively address complex social challenges.
In summary, while the article presents a strong viewpoint on the importance of merit and raises valid concerns about potential threats to it, it falls short in providing substantial evidence, considering alternative viewpoints, and offering specific solutions. A more nuanced and evidence-based analysis would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the argument.
It's good to see you fight back. But unfortunately things will get worst. Much worst. Especially for biology and genetics. This is the op ed from James Lee on NIH blocking access to genetic data.
At some point, things will get so bad that I see scientists doing research in behavior genetics or intelligence to move to Russia or China. The irony of it. One has to move to authoritarian countries to do search for truth.
Wow, you're actually serious. Lol. The graph in that opinion piece is not a definition. You do like ranting about leftists, which explains why you defend an agenda driven load of horseshit.
The article presents a strong and assertive stance on the significance of merit in liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. It highlights the scientific enterprise as the epitome of merit-based progress and credits it with numerous positive outcomes for society. However, it fails to substantiate its claims with specific evidence or examples, relying instead on broad statements and sweeping generalizations.
Furthermore, the article's portrayal of non-scientific, politically motivated criteria as a threat to merit lacks nuance and fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in decision-making processes. By dismissing alternative perspectives as solely driven by ideology, it oversimplifies and undermines potential valid critiques or considerations outside of the scientific realm.
The article's characterization of an "intrusion of ideology" into scientific institutions could benefit from a more rigorous analysis of the dynamics at play. It should acknowledge that scientific research is not immune to biases and external influences, and exploring these influences in a more nuanced manner could provide a more balanced perspective.
Additionally, the article's proposal of a human-centered alternative approach to address social inequalities lacks specificity. It does not sufficiently explain how this alternative approach differs from the existing paradigm or how it can effectively address complex social challenges.
In summary, while the article presents a strong viewpoint on the importance of merit and raises valid concerns about potential threats to it, it falls short in providing substantial evidence, considering alternative viewpoints, and offering specific solutions. A more nuanced and evidence-based analysis would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the argument.
You didn't even bother to define "merit".
Excellent Lee, thanks for sharing
Great job. You folks are doing God’s work.
Can you let us know the publications that rejected you?
The mere fact that there's a need to defend merit is itself horrifying. That means the only difference between us and nazi Germany is the language.
The first link in the email is identical to the second link, and goes to WSJ, not to the article. The mistake has been corrected in the web page
It's good to see you fight back. But unfortunately things will get worst. Much worst. Especially for biology and genetics. This is the op ed from James Lee on NIH blocking access to genetic data.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/dont-even-go-there
At some point, things will get so bad that I see scientists doing research in behavior genetics or intelligence to move to Russia or China. The irony of it. One has to move to authoritarian countries to do search for truth.