Ezra on Nostr: rachie It seems odd to me. His research is comprehensively torn apart by numerous ...
rachie (npub1at4…us9r)
It seems odd to me.
His research is comprehensively torn apart by numerous independent groups and he is both discredited and insanely biased (something that obviously impacts his approach) which means citing him imho is basically the equivalent of citing the CIA press dept in a discussion about American war crimes.
Like I get the impression from the Newton pages this is the best guy they had, but as a social science student myself it takes very little effort to see there are huge issues with his work that are pretty obvious when pointed out (and they are pointed out, on wikipedia, since there is an entire page there dedicated to people disproving his work, so it isn't difficult to find the further studies on it).
And if this is the best they could do, is the point really about research or did they just want to, as their own debate guide suggests, instil authority in their rhetoric? ;
"Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics"
Which is true, unless someone looks behind that facade
It seems odd to me.
His research is comprehensively torn apart by numerous independent groups and he is both discredited and insanely biased (something that obviously impacts his approach) which means citing him imho is basically the equivalent of citing the CIA press dept in a discussion about American war crimes.
Like I get the impression from the Newton pages this is the best guy they had, but as a social science student myself it takes very little effort to see there are huge issues with his work that are pretty obvious when pointed out (and they are pointed out, on wikipedia, since there is an entire page there dedicated to people disproving his work, so it isn't difficult to find the further studies on it).
And if this is the best they could do, is the point really about research or did they just want to, as their own debate guide suggests, instil authority in their rhetoric? ;
"Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics"
Which is true, unless someone looks behind that facade