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

Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 248 posts

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

#111

Post by nopinsight »

whatshisface wrote: post #47
ve55 wrote: post #29

When opponents think about how 'damaging' papers like this are, they should also consider how damaging things like this are to the field in general, and how they may cause a lot of second-order harm. Many that I know have begun to distrust areas of academia much more recently, and when they see scenarios like this over and over it doesn't help. We all know that no one will support you for saying the truth if it won't…

At least the controversy about string theory has been in the public eye for a while now. It seems like physics hit the worst of it in the 90s and the public trust we have now is relatively sturdy.

The public trusts most areas of physics because we use them to build many artifacts, some quite amazing, we interact with everyday and also because there are solid experiments that repeatedly confirm them. Some may extend this trust to the most modern areas yet without experimental confirmations, but not everyone does.

The situation is quite different for many softer sciences for which neither of the above conditions is true. If the public found out they have been misled by a whole field for decades, the trust in that field could be shaken to a great extent. Even adjacent fields could be affected as collateral damage.

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

#112

Post by yorwba »

brenschluss wrote: post #31

The paper seems to have some egregious and basic errors. Take a look at the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf On page 2, it says (in discussing Special Case 1): "If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1" However, if you look at the histogram in Figure 1, it's clear…

> It would be absolutely incorrect to say that "all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1".

No, that's exactly correct. The example is set up so that no individual from B2 gets to mate with A. Therefore, the next generation only consists of offspring of B1. (I think you understand that, since you say "sex A is choosing most desirable mates who happened to be part of the subpopulation B1".) B1 is the more variable subpopulation. Therefore, the sentence "all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1" is correct.

I suspect you are interpreting it as making a statement about the subpopulation B11 (of the subpopulation B1) that actually gets to mate. But if you split B1 into the more desirable B11 and the less desirable B12, then you can't even talk about their variability relative to B2, because the paper only defines comparisons of variability for distributions with the same median.

So the sentence "all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B11" is not only incorrect but meaningless. Although they seem to be talking about the same individuals (and "all of the next generation will be offspring of the subpopulation B11" is true) they are talking about different populations, and "more variable" can only be applied meaningfully to B1.

In terms of your fruit example, the correct translation would be "All fruit in Sack 2 came from Sack 1, which had high variability." without any implications about variability of Sack 2.

Heritability of variability is only introduced on page 6: " it will be assumed that the pace of evolution is negligible compared to the pace of reproduction, so the two subpopulations remain distinct, with offspring distributed the same way as the parent subpopulation". In other words, although three subpopulations B11, B12 and B2 can be clearly distinguished, only membership in B1 or B2 is actually heritable, with B11's offspring either in B11 or B12. If B2 ever got to reproduce, it would have B2 offspring, while B12 would produce B11 or B12. So although B12 never reproduces, it never dies out due to offspring of B11.

Of course the conditions in those examples are contrived and that makes the conclusions almost trivial (a caveat that is noted in the paper: "The precise formal definitions and assumptions made here are clearly not applicable in real-life scenarios, and thus the contribution here is also merely a general theory intended to open the discussion to further mathematical modeling and analysis") but it is certainly free from egregious and basic errors.

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

#113

Post by rhapsodic »

kupiakos wrote: post #73
another-cuppa wrote: post #66

I don't even understand why this is controversial. I've explained this to a number of women before and none of them have felt hurt. On the contrary, in fact, it makes them feel better. Humans always fixate on extremes. Men and women. It's a problem in our society. We always want to see the very best and we're not interested in others who are still way above average. There are thousands of women doing great science, e…

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.

> but personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way.

That statement speaks volumes, and probably in ways that you did not intend.

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

#114

Post by CM30 »

trolleyhacker wrote: post #89
ratsmack wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? Isn't one of the merits of ones learning is to have an open mind to new ideas? Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends... I find this troubling myself.

From the article: > Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. It's sad that these lunatics have the power to do these things, but that's why people appease them.

The thing is, a lot of these people don't have the power to do the things they claim. Or at least, they'd be perfectly replaceable by those who'd do a better job.

Indeed, the only reason this sort of crap happens is because organisations and companies don't have the guts to tell the moral police to sod off. If they did, and their tactics stopped working, many of these issues would go away.

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by quotemstr »

rhapsodic wrote: post #113
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.

> but personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way. That statement speaks volumes, and probably in ways that you did not intend.

Note the category error in the GP: comparison of a singular with a plural without any sort of grouping operator applies to the plural. It's become so fashionable to talk about group justice that some people see groups as the primary objects of human experience and think of individuals only as members of homogeneous groups. It's nonsense, but it's the only interpretation of the GP that makes any kind of internal sense.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

mirimir wrote: post #102
nervlord wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 adm…

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by makomk »

quotemstr wrote: post #16
traject_ wrote: post #7

Wow, I didn't know that academia was getting this bad; what happened to letting the truth be debated a la the Socratic dialogue in the academia of all places!

What happened? I call it valence hijacking. Sometimes, a thing --- a word, an institution, a bit of history --- has cultural power. It's surrounded with an aura (or valence, if you will) of gravitas and mystique, usually accumulated over decades, or millennia. Acrivists notice that these things have cultural power and hijack them, turning them into something useful for the cause while denying that anything has change…

Of course, the trouble is that this cuts both ways. Because "science" is associated with trustworthy, evidence-based statements and "activism" isn't, one technique I've seen is people with an audience and a political axe to grind declaring a particular niche theory that goes against the consensus to be "science", and any criticism of the scientific merits of this to be an example of "activists" attacking "science".

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

#119

Post by aixee3311 »

js8 wrote: post #78
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 idea that I'm simply less biologically capable than men in any way" Nobody (serious) is saying that. First, when this is talked about, it's always about averages, which are meaningless from individual perspective. Second, there are obvious biological traits where women are less capable than men on average, like weightlifting. There are also traits where women are more capable, like having kids. These are facts t…

> Nobody (serious) is saying that.

People are saying that seriously a lot on HN.

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

#120

Post by DennisP »

kupiakos wrote: post #73
another-cuppa wrote: post #66

I don't even understand why this is controversial. I've explained this to a number of women before and none of them have felt hurt. On the contrary, in fact, it makes them feel better. Humans always fixate on extremes. Men and women. It's a problem in our society. We always want to see the very best and we're not interested in others who are still way above average. There are thousands of women doing great science, e…

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 hypothesis makes no such claim; it's compatible with you being smarter than 99.999% of the world's men.
Post reply on HN