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.
Ok, I am going to leave that reply up so that everyone else can see what an ass you are. The rules here are simple. Disagreement and criticism is fine, but engage civilly and respectfully, without insults and denunciations. If you can't do that, I will simply delete your comments.
On the demerits of your substance. Denial is not an argument. Of course it is our definition of scientific merit. Rigor plus importance.
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.
This "article", sadly, only serves to reinforce the ideas CSJ are promoting. It boils down there argument into a simplistic narrative and then attempt to provide its own counter-narrative. This article, neither attempts to understand the origins of CSJ, or the nuances behind its theory. This article feeds on vagary and lack of depth. I came into this article more inclined towards the writers opinion but after reading it hard to really feel that way. They never actually define "merit" the closest thing to this in my opinion was the, importance/strength of evidence graph. Is this really merit though? Maybe strength of evidence should be our only criteria. But what is evidence? What is strong evidence? What is weak evidence? How does logic play a role in all of this? This article lacks basic critical thinking and by doing so only support's CSJ.
Hi Tibby glad to have you around. Dear Tibby & yyyy:
In some sense, your criticisms are a well-known problem. I think of it as the "reviewers critique the paper on the grounds that they think we should have written another paper." Which is fine as far as it goes.
1. On the narrow issue of us supposedly not defining merit:
There are four entries: Him, me, him, me. The first three are quite long for comments and might constitute an excellent standalone blog. He starts out endorsing a podcast by 3 philosophers who argued something akin to your analysis here: 1. We should have engaged CSJ more deeply; and also, 2. we have a flimsy philosophy of science (neither of you made this point, but its similar in spirit in that it is absolutely true that we did not write a deep philosophy of science paper just as we did not write a paper on the ins and outs of CSJ or propose a series of actionable programs to protect and reward merit while simultaneously addressing the bona fide inequalities that beset society). Anyway, given the call for more deeply nuanced engagement with certain ideas, even if you still do not come away fully satisfied, I suspect you will enjoy the exchange; and, even if not, you will have a better sense of why we wrote the paper we wrote, rather than some other one.
On your comment, Tibby, about writing about the "more complex dynamics at play"? This is the stuff of books and long lines of scholarship, not a single paper. I say that in all seriousness. We recently published this book on this issue:
However, if you go to the "Chapters" tab of unsafe science, you will find three chapters (1 or 2 may be paid subscription only but not all 3 and I will probably post another one soon, free) on ideological intrusions into mostly social science. Though I have several essays on that problem, my favorite one here emblematic of that problem is this one:
None of this is to dismiss the issues that either of you have raised. Nor am I in the business of giving you "homework." I am merely pointing out that those issues are usually far vaster than can be addressed in a single place, paper, essay, or even a single book.
The only official reject was PNAS. However, informal inquiries were sent to a slew of journals (I forget which now) and the editors told us (diplomatically) to go fly kites. This is not as bad as it sounds though. It was an unusual paper in that it was not a set of empirical studies, and it was not a bold new theory. So it really did not fit the type of thing they usually publish. However, some did publish "perspective" type pieces and they were also disinterested.
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.
I think you are correct that it will get worse before it gets better, but I think you are wrong that scientists will move to China or authoritarian countries to do real work. China is notorious for research fraud and having to cleave to the party line to have a job. The problem isn’t that the US is becoming the opposite of authoritarian and so fleeing to more authoritarian states is an answer, the problem is the US is becoming more authoritarian and will become as bad as China.
Research in genetics for the most part involve studies of DNA data in national biobanks. That's why papers in behavior genetics are so reproducible. It's basically open source data analysis on data collected by government agencies.
Fraud of course can still happen anywhere. But at least a Western scientist working in China doesn't have to pledge allegiance to woke ideology just to get through a day. You won't get fired for in China for misgendering somebody like in the US. But you will get fired for criticizing the CCP. One must weigh the pros/cons of this.
Slight correction: you will get fired for criticizing the CCP OR falling afoul of any of their party lines. I suppose Lysenkoism might not be quite the word to apply to China, but the basic principle is the same. There are ok findings and not ok findings, and if you suggest things that are not ok you get in trouble. That is a key feature of all authoritarian and totalitarian states, and China is no exception.
In the US: Have to pledge allegiance to DEI. Have accept that you're inherently sexist and racist. Have to accept that test scores are racist. Can't give bad grades to certain minorities (because of racism). Have to call dudes with beards and purple hair and a dress using "she/her" pronouns. Pay lots of taxes to support DEI staff at every department. Pay reparations from your taxes. Get assaulted by illegal immigrants who are trying to culturally enrich your country.
In China: Have to keep quiet about criticizing the CCP. Don't bring up Tiananmen Square massacre. Don't do research that harms China.
I imagine China is better if your research field is STEM, genetics, intelligence, etc. But your mileage may vary.
I am not saying either option is good, that's why I am no longer in academia. Although, unlike China you don't get disappeared to a reeducation camp for crossing the party line in the US. Yet.
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.
Ok, I am going to leave that reply up so that everyone else can see what an ass you are. The rules here are simple. Disagreement and criticism is fine, but engage civilly and respectfully, without insults and denunciations. If you can't do that, I will simply delete your comments.
On the demerits of your substance. Denial is not an argument. Of course it is our definition of scientific merit. Rigor plus importance.
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.
This "article", sadly, only serves to reinforce the ideas CSJ are promoting. It boils down there argument into a simplistic narrative and then attempt to provide its own counter-narrative. This article, neither attempts to understand the origins of CSJ, or the nuances behind its theory. This article feeds on vagary and lack of depth. I came into this article more inclined towards the writers opinion but after reading it hard to really feel that way. They never actually define "merit" the closest thing to this in my opinion was the, importance/strength of evidence graph. Is this really merit though? Maybe strength of evidence should be our only criteria. But what is evidence? What is strong evidence? What is weak evidence? How does logic play a role in all of this? This article lacks basic critical thinking and by doing so only support's CSJ.
Lee Jussim
14 min ago
Author
Hi Tibby glad to have you around. Dear Tibby & yyyy:
In some sense, your criticisms are a well-known problem. I think of it as the "reviewers critique the paper on the grounds that they think we should have written another paper." Which is fine as far as it goes.
1. On the narrow issue of us supposedly not defining merit:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-bad-criticisms-of-our
2. On why the paper did not do lots of other things that it would have been great to do (tl;dr: because then it would have been a different paper):
See the detailed exchange between Simon Lucas (a bioethicist at Merck) and me that begins here:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-bad-criticisms-of-our/comment/17178527
There are four entries: Him, me, him, me. The first three are quite long for comments and might constitute an excellent standalone blog. He starts out endorsing a podcast by 3 philosophers who argued something akin to your analysis here: 1. We should have engaged CSJ more deeply; and also, 2. we have a flimsy philosophy of science (neither of you made this point, but its similar in spirit in that it is absolutely true that we did not write a deep philosophy of science paper just as we did not write a paper on the ins and outs of CSJ or propose a series of actionable programs to protect and reward merit while simultaneously addressing the bona fide inequalities that beset society). Anyway, given the call for more deeply nuanced engagement with certain ideas, even if you still do not come away fully satisfied, I suspect you will enjoy the exchange; and, even if not, you will have a better sense of why we wrote the paper we wrote, rather than some other one.
On your comment, Tibby, about writing about the "more complex dynamics at play"? This is the stuff of books and long lines of scholarship, not a single paper. I say that in all seriousness. We recently published this book on this issue:
https://www.amazon.com/Research-Integrity-Practices-Behavioral-Sciences/dp/0190938552
However, if you go to the "Chapters" tab of unsafe science, you will find three chapters (1 or 2 may be paid subscription only but not all 3 and I will probably post another one soon, free) on ideological intrusions into mostly social science. Though I have several essays on that problem, my favorite one here emblematic of that problem is this one:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/apex-peer-reviewed-journal-nature, although this one is also quite good, on academic propaganda masquerading as "science":
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/propaganda-and-bullshit-academic
None of this is to dismiss the issues that either of you have raised. Nor am I in the business of giving you "homework." I am merely pointing out that those issues are usually far vaster than can be addressed in a single place, paper, essay, or even a single book.
You didn't even bother to define "merit".
Heh. We did. https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-bad-criticisms-of-our
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 only official reject was PNAS. However, informal inquiries were sent to a slew of journals (I forget which now) and the editors told us (diplomatically) to go fly kites. This is not as bad as it sounds though. It was an unusual paper in that it was not a set of empirical studies, and it was not a bold new theory. So it really did not fit the type of thing they usually publish. However, some did publish "perspective" type pieces and they were also disinterested.
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.
I think you are correct that it will get worse before it gets better, but I think you are wrong that scientists will move to China or authoritarian countries to do real work. China is notorious for research fraud and having to cleave to the party line to have a job. The problem isn’t that the US is becoming the opposite of authoritarian and so fleeing to more authoritarian states is an answer, the problem is the US is becoming more authoritarian and will become as bad as China.
Research in genetics for the most part involve studies of DNA data in national biobanks. That's why papers in behavior genetics are so reproducible. It's basically open source data analysis on data collected by government agencies.
Fraud of course can still happen anywhere. But at least a Western scientist working in China doesn't have to pledge allegiance to woke ideology just to get through a day. You won't get fired for in China for misgendering somebody like in the US. But you will get fired for criticizing the CCP. One must weigh the pros/cons of this.
Slight correction: you will get fired for criticizing the CCP OR falling afoul of any of their party lines. I suppose Lysenkoism might not be quite the word to apply to China, but the basic principle is the same. There are ok findings and not ok findings, and if you suggest things that are not ok you get in trouble. That is a key feature of all authoritarian and totalitarian states, and China is no exception.
So your choices in academia in US vs China are:
In the US: Have to pledge allegiance to DEI. Have accept that you're inherently sexist and racist. Have to accept that test scores are racist. Can't give bad grades to certain minorities (because of racism). Have to call dudes with beards and purple hair and a dress using "she/her" pronouns. Pay lots of taxes to support DEI staff at every department. Pay reparations from your taxes. Get assaulted by illegal immigrants who are trying to culturally enrich your country.
In China: Have to keep quiet about criticizing the CCP. Don't bring up Tiananmen Square massacre. Don't do research that harms China.
I imagine China is better if your research field is STEM, genetics, intelligence, etc. But your mileage may vary.
I am not saying either option is good, that's why I am no longer in academia. Although, unlike China you don't get disappeared to a reeducation camp for crossing the party line in the US. Yet.
Totally agree. If you go over to Dorian Abbot’s Heterodox STEM Substack, you will find my essay, It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Worse.
I wasn't aware of that substack. Thanks for pointing me to it. I've subscribed to it.