Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole • Hacker News Board

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#101

Post by metaphor » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 9:52 AM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #68

briandear wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is specificly why I am a climate skeptic. Not a denier, mind you, but a skeptic when it comes to anything purporting to be “settled science.” It’s specifically because there is a strong resistance to anything damaging to the status quo, as supported by grant funding and, to a lesser extent, political agenda. Frankly, it’s hard to trust academia on controversial topics.

What we need to distinguish here is what exactly we're talking about being "settled science". Is "human CO2 emissions are causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification" settled science? Yes. Is "how much will that affect us and the planet at different time scales" settled science? Not completely, no. The climate system is incredibly hard to model. What scientists are doing in the latter regard is mak…

> ...we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions. Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.

You may wish to reassess your remark for accuracy after actually taking the time to digest the Clean Air Act codified in 42 U.S.C. Ch 85[1].

[1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2016-title42/html/USCOD...

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#102

Post by mirimir » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 9:52 AM UTC

nervlord wrote: post #91

mirimir wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the point here. If the article had been rejected everywhere, debating its soundness would be relevant. But this paper was accepted, and actually published , so that's irrelevant.

no, it was not. It was withdrawn, did you read the article or did you see "omg states facts that i am uncomfortable with" and decide to go no further?

No, it wasn't. Only the author can "withdraw" a paper. This paper "vanished" after Benson Farb (Amie Wilkinson's husband) bullied NYJM.

Also, "Did you read the article?" violates HN norms.

Edit: OK, I see that Elsevier uses "withdrawn" as you say,[0] but its criteria are scarcely applicable to the paper in question. Even without getting into the merits, this paper was apparently actually published. Just online, I admit, but they gave him a damn page number!

> Article withdrawal

> Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), may be “Withdrawn” from ScienceDirect. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the Elsevier Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal with a link to the current policy document.

0) https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#103

Post by lolc » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:05 AM UTC

jonnybgood wrote: post #62

This is a one-sided story pushing a "Us vs Them" narrative. I can see nothing productive coming out of this.

The weird thing is that the paper was accepted at two journals. Which says something about it's quality. It doesn't mean the author is right! But at that point (if you assume scientifc honesty) you'd expect critics to distill their disagreements in a paper and publish that.

That hasn't happened however. All that's happened has happened behind the scenes. Unless the article we read is dishonest in this regard.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#104

Post by marchenko » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:07 AM UTC

maxnoe wrote: post #87

kupiakos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may have made the women you've talked to feel better, but personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way.

The thing is, reality is under no obligation to care about your feelings. I don't like the idea men live shorter than woman, but that's reality. Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. And nobody here said that women are less capable than men. The hypothesis was, that the distribution for some traits for men has more kurtosis, so while the mean is similar, there are more outli…

I'm agnostic about the GMV hypothesis, but I will note that is generally taken very seriously in behavioral genetics. Interestingly, the example of the significant female advantage in life expectancy is a relatively recent phenomenon thought to be significantly influenced at present (at the population level) to differences in smoking rates. Pregnancy and childbirth morbidity and mortality used to neutralize the difference or even tip the scales in favor of men in some places in the past. Nature might not be fooled, but we can be fooled about nature, especially when complex behavior is involved.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#105

Post by zeth___ » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:11 AM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #41

zeth___ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the argument. It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2. You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries). That's the whole point of sexual…

> You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it Yes, I completely agree with you! You will have much less variability. However, that's not what the paper argues. The paper argues that you would have more variability. I'd appreciate you taking a look at the original paper (specifically, the bottom of page 2 [edit: and Figure 1]) and understanding my original arg…

Right, and now compare it to the original bag.

You have increased variability between generations by reducing the variability in the second generation.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#106

Post by zeth___ » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #72

quotemstr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, reduce emissions and more seriously consider geoengineering. A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate.

We may well be forced into geoengineering. Because, by the time enough people/firms/governments are sufficiently motivated, it'll be too late for anything else. Except adapting, I mean. But anyway, CO2 capture is the obviously safest bet. Adding shitloads of iron to the oceans, or injecting shitloads of SOx into the stratosphere, are just a little too likely to have serious downsides. Or putting screens at L1, for th…

The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different.

Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#107

Post by mirimir » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:29 AM UTC

zeth___ wrote: post #106

mirimir wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We may well be forced into geoengineering. Because, by the time enough people/firms/governments are sufficiently motivated, it'll be too late for anything else. Except adapting, I mean. But anyway, CO2 capture is the obviously safest bet. Adding shitloads of iron to the oceans, or injecting shitloads of SOx into the stratosphere, are just a little too likely to have serious downsides. Or putting screens at L1, for th…

The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different. Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?

That is an interesting question.

By then, it seems likely that Canada will be part of the US. Or at least, that the northern US and Canada will have merged. And impacts do seem horrible for Australia.

But damn, war over atmospheric CO2 management. What a trip.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#108

Post by 08-15 » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #100

quotemstr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, reduce emissions and more seriously consider geoengineering. A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate.

A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate, and for good reason. Scientists know that theory and practice often are very different. You can't 'experiment' with global scale geo-engineering. To put it in HN terms: you're deploying untested code for a global scale life support system written by a first-project-junior in an expe…

> Scientists know that theory and practice often are very different.

Obviously! But the theory of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Climate Change is different. This one is beyond reproach and matches practice perfectly.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#109

Post by mathprof » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:43 AM UTC

opwieurposiu wrote: post #27

Amie Wilkinson has managed to do many times more harm to the image of women in science then this paper ever could.

She is an ideologue who persecutes scientists because their Research doesn't fit her life's narrative. Oppressive Mob mentality at its best and least reflected.

Re: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

#110

Post by mathprof » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #52

AlexCoventry wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing original or subtle about it, and it was blatantly intended by the Mathematical Intelligencer editor to stir shit up.

All of that can be true and Amie Wilkinson's campaign of harassment would still be vile and disgusting behaviour, unworthy of an adult of any kind. She got the paper withdrawn from two different journals, and got Dr Tabachnikov to withdraw his name from the paper. What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? Because that’s what the article is about, a campaign of harassment from a woman in a position of power.

Antithetical to the scientific idea in the extreme. Vile and enraging mob mentality. Horrible human, danger to academia.