Ezra on Nostr: rachie He is a MAP and outside his academic role historically made speeches ...
rachie (npub1at4…us9r)
He is a MAP and outside his academic role historically made speeches supporting pro-contact stances in a political environment. This is, imo correctly, used to explain why his research articles make specific recommendations along the same political lines.
Meta-analyses conducted by various different researchers to try and replicate his results did not in fact do so, which in a scientific sense is (very) bad. Additionally articles published on his articles point out critical issues with the methodology and approach which are further studied in replication studies. This again, isn't a good look.
As far as "scientists" go the only way I would consider someone less reputable is if they went full anti vax tinfoil hat mode or something.
I think if he had been right, it would be possible to make the argument without citing him anyway, since for these reasons there's no point citing him in a serious context.
He is a MAP and outside his academic role historically made speeches supporting pro-contact stances in a political environment. This is, imo correctly, used to explain why his research articles make specific recommendations along the same political lines.
Meta-analyses conducted by various different researchers to try and replicate his results did not in fact do so, which in a scientific sense is (very) bad. Additionally articles published on his articles point out critical issues with the methodology and approach which are further studied in replication studies. This again, isn't a good look.
As far as "scientists" go the only way I would consider someone less reputable is if they went full anti vax tinfoil hat mode or something.
I think if he had been right, it would be possible to make the argument without citing him anyway, since for these reasons there's no point citing him in a serious context.