9 Comments

Dear Professor Thorp, if I may, before we can address your question:

Who is a scientist?

we need to answer:

What is science?

Science is ever-proper alignment of reason with experience.

Thanking you,

Yours truly,

posina

Expand full comment

'Science as ever-proper alignment of reason with experience' can be exemplified, say, in terms of our scientific conception of time, which, as though reflecting in itself, cycled back to ancient cyclical conception: "in Indo-European languages 'time' is not typically just an abstract one-dimensional continuum; the abstract time is a dialectical negation of the idea of time as the rich environment of external conditions that may influence our system, but which we can influence only negligibly: In Italian tempo (time) also means weather, in Danish the word for time is tid, which is old English for tide. In a Zeit-ung like the Times the tidings describe the whole tempestuous march of events over which the reader has little control. In English we have 'the worst of times' and 'the best of times', and 'the times are a-changing', something a mere smooth line cannot be or do" (https://github.com/mattearnshaw/lawvere/blob/master/pdfs/2001-categorical-algebra-for-continuum-micro-physics.pdf, p. 278), all of which calls into question the whig history of science. Not unlike time, science, along with everything else in nature, is cyclical (circling around enlightenment and idiocracy, with brief sojourns of advancing and not advancing as fast as we'd like ;)

Expand full comment

A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method. Period.

Unfortunately, we have reached a point in our culture where almost no one knows what the scientific method is, anymore.

Broadening the definition of scientist out so much that it is meaningless is not helpful. This is a signature element of those forces of darkness that are frantic to destroy science; redefine the meaning of words so that no one knows what they are talking about anymore.

If you look at the origins of the word "science", you will find that centuries ago the term was incredibly vague and could apply to almost anything. I think we should not go back to this, even though many might favor it.

Expand full comment

It pains me to see Popper so badly cited by Holden Thorp.

In "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Karl Popper identifies falsifiability as the key concept for the demarcation of science from non-science and pseudoscience. Specifically, Popper emphasizes empiricism and falsifiability, writing that “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations.”

Holden Thorpe builds a straw man with his comment that "Anyone who thinks the Lakota authors are not scientists just because they don’t have a bunch of credentials doesn’t really understand how science works." That's obvious! It's also obviously meaningless to ramble that "everyone who contributes to the scientific enterprise is a scientist" whilst not even trying to define what the scientific enterprise is in the first place. Robert Merton's 1942 seminal work "The Normative Structure of Science" identifies Universalism as one of the fundamental characteristics of science (along with communality, neutrality, and organized skepticism). Universalism is the principle that scientific ideas should be evaluated solely based on their merit, empirical evidence, and logical coherence rather than on factors such as the race, sex, nationality, culture or social standing of the people proposing them. That's a principle that Holden Thorpe's Science Magazine, with its' obsessions over "Identity", routinely undermines.

Expand full comment

I agree.

Most of Holden Thrope's comments and statements make me cringe, if not approach nausea.

Who made this character the spokesman and ambassador for science? He appears to be some sort of marginally competent buffoon with a sketchy career suffering from a "white savior" complex. Thorpe seems to be an elitist liberal looking down on all the "little brown people" in STEM from his putatively exalted position. He is someone who just toes the Democrat Party and Wokeist Ideology line, mindlessly.

I am of indigenous extraction myself, and by championing primitive folklore narratives over real modern empirical science, Holden Thorpe is committing that cardinal sin of Wokeism, "cultural appropriation". According to the very ideology Thorpe appears to subscribe to, a dried-up old puffy white guy like him is not allowed to pluck out ideas from other cultures to parade around and make himself look good, to "virtue signal". That is strictly forbidden under modern culture warrior tenets. And yet, he has no qualms about doing so, because he thinks it casts him in a tolerant light, or something. It is shameful and ridiculous, really.

What on earth is wrong with Holden Thorpe? This appears to be someone who is in love with the notion of science determined by consensus, flying in the face of the voluminous historical evidence to the contrary. And he exhibits many other issues, in addition. I find it somewhat concerning, actually.

I am pondering writing an essay addressing some of Thorpe's more outrageous claims, over the last few years. I have been watching his pronouncements with increasing amounts of horror over this period.

We will see what happens.

Expand full comment

I am not the only one who notices problems with Holden Thorpe. Check out this recent article about his testimony in front of Congress:

Is the Science journals editor showing remorse?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/is-the-science-journals-editor-showing-remorse/ar-AA1nwGe6

Hauled in front of Congress recently, Science Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp showed signs of being open to views other than his own, which may be a first for him.

Is Thorpe really showing remorse? He is so arrogant that this would be pretty uncharacteristic, frankly. On Thinkspot, there is an article about him debating a scientist who is a young woman of color. The debate is linked in the article, and it is almost unwatchable, because Thorpe is so smug and dismissive.

Expand full comment

Thanks for those comments and the link to the article. Is the debate you mentioned between Thorp and Luana Maroja? (Yes, Thorp was cringe). She was brilliant, fearless and insightful! Luana Maroja for Editor in Chief of Science Magazine!

Expand full comment

Yes. I am contemplating writing an article reviewing this debate from the present day vantage point for Dorian Abbot of Heterodox STEM.

An interesting comparison can be made by looking at Piers Morgan's interview of Mathematical Physicist Eric Weinstein:

"We Don't Know How Long We Have Left" Eric Weinstein On Nuclear Threat To Humanity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8y5_gGF9H8

In particular, pay attention to Eric Weinstein's comments on the pandemic. Weinstein is far more honest and incisive than anything that comes out of Thorpe.

Thorpe's testimony in front of Congress trying to pretend he did not hold the positions he has held was pretty bad. I guess there are recordings of it. Thorpe writes that he was very pleased with his "wonderful performance" in front of Congress. I have not watched the recordings; I am not sure I could stomach them.

I am so disgusted with this character I can hardly restrain myself and remain professional. His entire career is sort of a disgrace, from what I can gather.

Most recently, Thorpe has written a self-congratulatory column on being on the autism spectrum. It just made me roll my eyes.

How were we so unlucky to end up with this clown as our representative? It is embarrassing.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Feb 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Dear Editor Thorp,

Scientific thinking is NOT different from commonplace everyday thinking.

The great late Einstein, my guru Professor F. William Lawvere, Fodor, and Kahneman (a few who readily came to my mind, all of whom happened to be working scientists) have all documented (in their peer-reviewed scientific publications) exactly that which I asserted in the first sentence of this post (for more, please see our peer-reviewed Mind & Matter paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/VENFSF), which, it must be noted, is based on our conscious participation in the practice of science (which is indispensable, given that science is not a spectator-sport; also, doing science in a zombie-mode is not conducive to conscious and effortful conceptualizations of planned perceptions and their subsequent presentations in words, sentences, et al., while communicating science).

The propinquity between individual cognition and collective science, which has been and continues to be in vivid display for all to perceive, happens to be the solid ground based on which Marx called for: Making Science Commonsense, which continues to resonate and move many of us: sensible-and-reasonable people/scientists to commit our lives to the universally-championed cause of materializing all the good that it exemplifies (e.g., Lawvere & Schanuel, Conceptual Mathematics; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f6EYx3Y_mXzSeaiuGuz5f6kZthDfEJJe/view?usp=sharing).

Intended or not by the author Atul Gawande Sir, I'm shocked and saddened to read here, of all places, in a public space, blatant promotion of a baseless Brahminical self-aggrandizing agenda (which, having been content within the confines of the familiarity of my four walls for quite sometime, I thought was put to rest in peace long time ago): placement of scientists (and/or so-called learned who religiously denied educational opportunities to their "others") on a higher pedestal vis-a-vis pedestrians.

If learning differential calculus, mastering CRISPR, and/or deploying blockchain technology to bring about financial democracy (https://seasonaltokens.org/) all alone sounds difficult, then you may want to remember Tolkien(?) stating the obvious (plausibly in response to a critique that his works are difficult): common people are intimately familiar with difficulty; they deal with it daily.

Freedoms, be it academic or that of vocalizing flyby freak thoughts in public spaces, are, as with everything else, circumscribed by what we consider to be acceptable limits, which may have to be spelled out once in a while for the greater good of all.

Thanking you, yours truly, posina

Expand full comment