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

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#11

Post by otakucode »

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 a study that showed significant reduction in depression among women who has unprotected sex with their male partner over women using condoms. This is simple biology, but it destroyed his career. The number of people worried that the public are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions and scared that such 'dangerous information' might lead to less frequent condom use and wider spread of STDs was much greater than the number of people who were glad to know some more about human biology.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#13

Post by yters »

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…

What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify a probable author.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#15

Post by nzjrs »

yters wrote: post #13
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…

What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify a probable author.

Probbable is defence enough I'd say.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#16

Post by CaptainZapp »

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.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#18

Post by rgrieselhuber »

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.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#19

Post by giantsloth »

s3r3nity wrote: post #7
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…

I came here to mention a similar comment. Ultimately, I think the success will be determined by the fact (hypothesis?) that if you de-center the author's authority from the argument about the validity of an argument or idea, you can instead re-center to something more foundational and logical. i.e. actually discussing the idea itself, rather than name-calling and mud-slinging as a form of discourse ("This person is a…

I’m not worried about the fictitious and overblown “SJW” strawman youtube has lead everyone to believe are everywhere. I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#20

Post by opwieurposiu »

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.

Post reply on HN