On 03/02/2016 11:31 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
He's doing it in the open, though, and can be flamed in the open by individuals like you. As opposed to sneaky behavior of threating editors and such.
I disagree. He _seems_ like he's doing it in the open. That's part of his purposefully constructed truth-like veneer. But posts like this are filled with "dog whistles", communicating with his naive realist brethren who _think_ they know things they don't actually know. The most obvious whistle is the word "bullshit". Naive realist know-it-alls love to prance around asserting how much more they understand subject X than the bullsh!tters. To boot, the ridicule/shaming/intimidation tactics they practice reach far beyond the open public spaces in which they spout their ridicule. (Think Dawkins.) It can pry into the very souls of younger community members and haunt the dreams of authentic researchers. Is this really very "open"? (Think "political correctness.") It can even help construct armies of groupthinking puppets. (Think "social justice warriors.") -- This is the Trumpification of science. True, the thick-skinned among us have no problems with it[*]. (My name is on a kind of "systematic review" of agent-based modeling. And because there were multiple authors, I don't completely agree with the way the article might be inferred. And, we took pains to highlight the usefulness and appropriate context of non-agent-based models, as well as the limitations of agent-based models.) But would a thin-skinned researcher avoid or get trapped in "analysis paralysis" because they don't want such ridicule to damage their reputation? Worse yet, would we lose such a person to a more polite enterprise? [*] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2620 -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
