Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#21

Post by motohagiography »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #16
motohagiography wrote: post #12

The Economist has been doing anonymous articles for about 100 years, I think the only difference is they are not controversial.

Not the same thing. Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell article by the editor in chief, are not bylined . The reason being that the newspaper wants to speak with one voice. In addition, and being certified and proud opinion journalism, I wouldn't exactly call TE uncontroversial. Not having a byline is very fundamentally different than writing under pseudonym.

The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference.

How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to?

Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#22

Post by Waterluvian »

mixedmath wrote: post #2

> One unusual feature of the journal will be giving authors the option to use a pseudonym (though the journal’s editors say they hope most will feel comfortable using their real names). The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper, and perhaps to claim it later when he or she is on firmer career footing. Or maybe just to put it out there, and never claim it at a…

Geez that idea sounds logical and disgusting. Which I've learned is a sign that we really need to be able to dig deep into it.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#23

Post by asianthrowaway »

otakucode wrote: post #11
542458 wrote: post #5

I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing, but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain merit because they’re controversial, they…

As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did…

How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#24

Post by jeffreyrogers »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #18

As soon as I saw Peter Singer, I knew what kind of controversial ideas they would be. Check out the writings of Bertrand Russell for more of the same. It's likely to be the old, regurgitated fantasies from the British Empire and early 20th century eugenicists.

I don't agree with most of Peter Singer's controversial positions (I'm not a utilitarian), but I think calling him a eugenicist is unfair and misrepresents his position.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#25

Post by rmtech »

542458 wrote: post #5

I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing, but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain merit because they’re controversial, they…

> journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago

Why were such ideas rejected? Is there a scientific case for rejecting them?

Science is an ongoing process, there is no central authority to reject sinful ideas which is what your comment indicates that you would like, which underlines the need for such a journal.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#26

Post by genericone »

asianthrowaway wrote: post #23
otakucode wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did…

How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)

If you take morality from everything, nothing is wrong, nothing has ever been wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, everything simply has-been/is/will-be. That's not the kind of world people want to live in.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#27

Post by asianthrowaway »

genericone wrote: post #26
asianthrowaway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)

If you take morality from everything, nothing is wrong, nothing has ever been wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, everything simply has-been/is/will-be. That's not the kind of world people want to live in.

Oh don't get me wrong, I personally oppose eugenics from a moral standpoint. I was just quibbling with the assertion that eugenics does not work because of a "misunderstanding on how DNA works". If that's the case I'd like him to explain how we have crops and domesticated animals.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#28

Post by rhspeer »

This is necessary.

Yes there will be ideas discussed at the quality of eugenics.

However, there may also be ideas like the earth orbiting the sun.

Example topics that should cause too much controversy for open discussion are: * The Palestinian apartheid

* How Carolyn Bryand Donham fits into the #metoo movement

* Supply side economics is the root cause of Facism

* How long should a peaceful protests be ignored before it can morally be violent?

* The United States was violently founded on "Taxation without representation". The same situation is happening now with gerrymandering and outdated Senate rules.

* Cloning is going to happen, and it is going to get weird

* AI is going to happen, and it may be scary

I am NOT opening these ideas up for discussion. What I am saying is that all these are worthy of open, thoughtful discussion. Sometimes to say they are not a thing, sometimes to change perceptions. Mostly they are going to make a lot of folks angry.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#29

Post by rgrieselhuber »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #24
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #18

As soon as I saw Peter Singer, I knew what kind of controversial ideas they would be. Check out the writings of Bertrand Russell for more of the same. It's likely to be the old, regurgitated fantasies from the British Empire and early 20th century eugenicists.

I don't agree with most of Peter Singer's controversial positions (I'm not a utilitarian), but I think calling him a eugenicist is unfair and misrepresents his position.

I didn’t call him a eugenicist. But I do put his opinions in the same category.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#30

Post by rgrieselhuber »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #20
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #18

As soon as I saw Peter Singer, I knew what kind of controversial ideas they would be. Check out the writings of Bertrand Russell for more of the same. It's likely to be the old, regurgitated fantasies from the British Empire and early 20th century eugenicists.

I think your comment wonderfully demonstrates the utility of publishing under a pseudonym. Rather then confront the actual merits and problems with this or that specific argument, a straw man is contructed and immediately doused with ad hominem. If the writer is anonymous, fallacious and time wasting ad hominem reasoning is prevented.

Ad Hominem is saying that something is invalid because of who the author / speaker is. I didn’t say that these ideas are likely to be invalid because they come from people like Peter Singer. I said based on the inclusion of people like him, it’s clear (to me, at least) what kind of ideas this journal will be discussing.
Post reply on HN