This is an outstanding reply to, and analysis of that Pamela Paul column in the New York Times that began this way:

"A paper that says science should be impartial was rejected by major journals. You can’t make this up."

Dave Karpf, an academic, takes it apart. He also testifies as a particiant in the peer review system. Worth your time.

https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/pamela-paul-cancel-culture-grifters?utm_medium=ios

#nytimes #journalism #peerreview #science

Pamela Paul, Cancel Culture Grifters, and the Republic of Letters

It's 2023. How is this possibly still a thing?

The Future, Now and Then
@jayrosen_nyu This link in the comments to Dave's post looks closely at the rejected paper - and it's worse than we even might think. But the analysis of it is brilliant, and brings out the issues masterfully.
https://timothyburke.substack.com/p/academia-sleight-of-hand
Academia: Sleight-of-Hand

Thursday's Child Has Far to Go

Eight by Seven

@DrewKadel @jayrosen_nyu

"they also want to insist that science is purely objective... that it stands outside of being human" is spot on.