• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Disappearing" a Published Scientific Paper

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So much for the marketplace of ideas. The PC vigilantes have taken over.

Forbidden facts and scientific papers that are erased: Thou shalt not discuss intelligence

Announcing the advent of the disappeared scientific paper:
Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the same volume (NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been.
What topic is too hot to discuss? In this case, hotter than climate — variability of intelligence. Obviously, it is an irrelevant construct, so irrelevant it must be outlawed. This debate got so ugly, half the board members of the second journal threatened not just to resign but to harass their own journal til “it died”. It’s that bad.
These institutions are sitting ducks — staffed with nice busy people who avoid conflict and who are not equipped to handle the missiles coming. Empiricism and rational debate is being replaced with bullying and censorship. See his plea at the end. To fight back against the bullies, spread the word, buy Ted Hill’s book, or subscribe to Quillette.
Quillette: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole

Ted Hill is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech. He has just published a memoir PUSHING LIMITS: From West Point to Berkeley and Beyond.
In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.
Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.
Darwin wondered why males might have evolved to be more variable than females, but could not settle on an answer, so Ted P. Hill took up the search…
My aim was not to prove or disprove that the hypothesis applies to human intelligence or to any other specific traits or species, but simply to discover a logical reason…
I came up with a simple intuitive mathematical argument based on biological and evolutionary principles and enlisted Sergei Tabachnikov, a Professor of Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, to help me flesh out the model.
He got great feedback, the preprint was published, the paper reviewed, typeset, accepted and scheduled. But at about the same time James Damore was triggering international strife at Google for suggesting that differences in gender variability might explain gender disparities in careers in Silicon Valley.
The accepted article was published as a preprint and then the trouble began: A representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department at Penn State warned that “the paper might be damaging to the aspirations of impressionable young women.” She worried that some will see maths being used to “support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”. . . .
 
Hmm... all men are not created equal but women come closer. What could possibly be objectionable about that?
 
You would think it would be more wise to apply the process of science to carry the hypothesis to a theory, then we might have a little more acceptance of discussing the why part.

Our real issue is study of the statistics observed to promote the hypothesis suggests the range for the "Variability Hypothesis" is greatly impacted by the problem observed.

For IQ tests specifically men tend to have a greater spread across the spectrum statistically having more in the extremes than women, but no one is really talking about the why part and everyone seems to be leaving out other statistical variances. Such as females tend to have higher variance on emotional factors where men tend to have higher variance on physical factors, transcending just the mere idea of IQ test spreads being the factor to focus on.

Ultimately the causes remain unknown suggesting further study.

The PC Police may be impacting this but what observances we do have from sociology, history, anthropology, etc. suggest that only in recent times have women had more placement in society where men historically have had exclusivity. As in roles of authority, governance, military, what have you that changes the factors to look at.

So the hypothesis becomes argumentative when used as a suggestion of one being better than another, we do not have enough explanation to support the idea. Only the observances of historical trends getting us to today's variances for men and women in various physical and emotional traits. The PC Police are going to step in anyway when the hypothesis is used to promote a political ideology, and more times than not politics tends to not care about science anyway.
 
You would think it would be more wise to apply the process of science to carry the hypothesis to a theory, then we might have a little more acceptance of discussing the why part.

Our real issue is study of the statistics observed to promote the hypothesis suggests the range for the "Variability Hypothesis" is greatly impacted by the problem observed.

For IQ tests specifically men tend to have a greater spread across the spectrum statistically having more in the extremes than women, but no one is really talking about the why part and everyone seems to be leaving out other statistical variances. Such as females tend to have higher variance on emotional factors where men tend to have higher variance on physical factors, transcending just the mere idea of IQ test spreads being the factor to focus on.

Ultimately the causes remain unknown suggesting further study.

The PC Police may be impacting this but what observances we do have from sociology, history, anthropology, etc. suggest that only in recent times have women had more placement in society where men historically have had exclusivity. As in roles of authority, governance, military, what have you that changes the factors to look at.

So the hypothesis becomes argumentative when used as a suggestion of one being better than another, we do not have enough explanation to support the idea. Only the observances of historical trends getting us to today's variances for men and women in various physical and emotional traits. The PC Police are going to step in anyway when the hypothesis is used to promote a political ideology, and more times than not politics tends to not care about science anyway.

There was never any "suggestion of one being better than another." That's the point.
 
So much for the marketplace of ideas. The PC vigilantes have taken over.

Forbidden facts and scientific papers that are erased: Thou shalt not discuss intelligence

Announcing the advent of the disappeared scientific paper:
Three days later, however, the paper had vanished. And a few days after that, a completely different paper by different authors appeared at exactly the same page of the same volume (NYJM Volume 23, p 1641+) where mine had once been.
What topic is too hot to discuss? In this case, hotter than climate — variability of intelligence.


Edited for brevity.

Jack Hayes:

Politics at work in academic journal review circles? Who'd have thunk? Well at least Ted Hill was not forced to publicly recant his heresy and kiss the ring or suffer a burning at the stake or defenestration, so there is a positive spin in this to some extent.

This is just the latest iteration of the power of academic orthodoxy in the face of unorthodox, unpopular or politically charged issues. The only difference is instead of removing and disposing or burning the books and articles the hammers of orthodoxy need now only quietly delete them from sight with some keystrokes. The technology has changed but the human condition and the motivation behind academic suppression has not.

Information and control of the means and terms of public debate are the roots of power and the pursuit of power often trumps other considerations like the truth or the free expression of ideas in "the marketplace of ideas". Personal and petty concerns can still stifle research, analysis, funding and dissemination of scientific ideas and often does in highly charged political climates, even today. Digital archives have been altered by governments even in liberal democracies in order to distort history and promote certain political viewpoints and political currents in both the Social Sciences and in the Sciences. Ecce Homo.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
There was never any "suggestion of one being better than another." That's the point.

But it will go there, which is my point.

We are on the same side on this one, the PC police is overreacting... but that tends to happen when science collides with politics.
 
Folks actually interested in speculating about the argy-bargy over the nature of events pertaining to Hill's paper may want to click here.

Also, just WTH is the NY Journal of Mathematics? I tried to find documentation its peer-review process -- for that's where one'd find detailed the guidelines for article submission and publication -- and there's no clear mention of how the publican conducts peer review. (Contrast that with, say the AMS' journal, or other math journals....One also may care to learn how other math journals select articles for publication/review submission.)

I was about to read the rubric article for this thread, and then at the top of the page, I saw this headline for the next article on that site:
Wealthy countries accused of trying to keep their money to themselves
What kind of analyst/commentator having any gravitas at all writes such a "Captain Obvious" headline?
 
Folks actually interested in speculating about the argy-bargy over the nature of events pertaining to Hill's paper may want to click here.

Also, just WTH is the NY Journal of Mathematics? I tried to find documentation its peer-review process -- for that's where one'd find detailed the guidelines for article submission and publication -- and there's no clear mention of how the publican conducts peer review. (Contrast that with, say the AMS' journal, or other math journals....One also may care to learn how other math journals select articles for publication/review submission.)

I was about to read the rubric article for this thread, and then at the top of the page, I saw this headline for the next article on that site:

What kind of analyst/commentator having any gravitas at all writes such a "Captain Obvious" headline?

Your recommended link to the "argy-bargy" included this howler: "It is true that Farb happens to also be Wilkinson’s husband, but I see no reason to doubt their statements on this matter."

No one but yourself is to blame for your ignorance of the NYJM.

[h=3]NYJM Home[/h]nyjm.albany.edu/



The New York Journal of Mathematics is refereed in the traditional manner, under the direction of our distinguished editorial board. We offer rapid publication of ...



[h=3]Editorial Board[/h]Editors. Yuri Berest, Cornell University Nathan Dunfield ...



[h=3]Volume Index[/h]Volume 24, 2018 · Volume 23, 2017 · Volume 22, 2016 ...



[h=3]Current Volume[/h]Theresa C. Anderson and David E. Weirich. A dyadic Gehring ...



[h=3]For Authors[/h]For the convenience of authors, a guide to the areas considered ...


 
I was about to read the rubric article for this thread, and then at the top of the page, I saw this headline for the next article on that site:

What kind of analyst/commentator having any gravitas at all writes such a "Captain Obvious" headline?

Apparently your sarcasm detector has failed.
 
Folks actually interested in speculating about the argy-bargy over the nature of events pertaining to Hill's paper may want to click here.

Also, just WTH is the NY Journal of Mathematics? I tried to find documentation its peer-review process -- for that's where one'd find detailed the guidelines for article submission and publication -- and there's no clear mention of how the publican conducts peer review. (Contrast that with, say the AMS' journal, or other math journals....One also may care to learn how other math journals select articles for publication/review submission.)

I was about to read the rubric article for this thread, and then at the top of the page, I saw this headline for the next article on that site:

What kind of analyst/commentator having any gravitas at all writes such a "Captain Obvious" headline?

The Quillette link is a much more inclusive blow-by-blow.
 
Folks actually interested in speculating about the argy-bargy over the nature of events pertaining to Hill's paper may want to click here.

Also, just WTH is the NY Journal of Mathematics? I tried to find documentation its peer-review process -- for that's where one'd find detailed the guidelines for article submission and publication -- and there's no clear mention of how the publican conducts peer review. (Contrast that with, say the AMS' journal, or other math journals....One also may care to learn how other math journals select articles for publication/review submission.)

I was about to read the rubric article for this thread, and then at the top of the page, I saw this headline for the next article on that site:

What kind of analyst/commentator having any gravitas at all writes such a "Captain Obvious" headline?

The excellent website Retraction Watch has now weighed in.

What really happened when two mathematicians tried to publish a paper on gender differences? The tale of the emails

". . . So much remains a mystery about this story. But in an attempt to shed some light, we asked Quillette and Hill if we could publish the documentation — mostly emails — that Hill said backed his version of events. He agreed, as long as it was a read-only version. You can find that here, with certain redactions of email addresses and phone numbers for privacy. . . . "
 
Back
Top Bottom