Do you have old family letters or documents in Yiddish or Hebrew that you would love to decipher?
Give new life to your old family secrets by having them professionally translated and researched.
@rabbidanielrowe Isn't this just medieval apologetics, since acknowledging that the Talmud is referring to Jesus would mean the mass burning of the Talmud?
Following the Arday affair and its coverage by the mainstream media (eg the BBC), can we finally put to bed the notion that disinformation and post-truthism is the preserve of the right?
Mistaken science is completely different from pseudoscience. In fact, mistaken science is an inherent and indispensable part of the process of scientific discovery. Newton's laws of nature are mistaken science, but they are as far from pseudoscience as you can possible get.
Pseudoscience is not a theory that is wrong, but a theory which doesn't attempt to track the available empirical evidence, either because it is entirely non-empirical and thus unfalsifiable, or because it ignores the available empirical evidence.
But the way people are throwing about the term pseudoscience is closer to "I find these conclusions highly offensive". Well, some of our best scientific theories ever (Heliocentrism, Darwinian evolution) were highly offensive at the time.
Are Cofnas' views scientifically correct? I'm no expert in the field, so I couldn't possibly comment. But to claim that they are pseudoscience, you'd have to show either that they are empirically unfalsifiable (and I can think of several ways in which they could be easily falsified), or that they have indeed been thoroughly falsified by available evidence (and from what I can tell no such consensus exists in the field). So I think you can justify claiming that his conclusions are wrong, but much harder to justify the claim that they are pseudoscientific.
And of course this applies only to the descriptive parts of his views. To the extent that he is advocating for any specific normative position, such as that we *should* study these issues, you can of course strongly object on moral grounds. But then that's no longer a discussion about the scientific merit of these views, but about the morality of carrying out the research program or of advocating for specific policies.
Does it have to involve beliefs about genetics? That would imply that racism couldn't have existed before modern science. Surely people have been racist for thousands of years.
So how about something more like this: hateful attitudes/actions towards a different race or perceived race?
And if you want to bake nornativity into the definition, you can add a condition that said hatred/attitudes need to be unjustified.
@TijlDeBie@nathancofnas@ugent Which of the allegations do you think merit the greatest concern? Which do you think is serious (even if not serious enough to overall academic freedom)?
I couldn't care less if you believed my experiences or not (maybe it is beyond you to fathom that someone might have the intellect to teach himself a language as an adult; or perhaps you'd rather be in denial about the level of disintegration in this country as that would challenge your preconceived notions of immigration and multiculturalism; or maybe you're just bitter that I don't share your politics). But maybe if you applied your scepticism more judiciously your view of reality would be less distorted.
People who hired Jason Arday:
โข No consequences
Leadership in Cambridge who signed a letter saying Arday was fully innocent, and that there must be no further investigations about him:
โข No consequences
First person who wanted to expose Arday's fraud:
โข Threatened with a big lawsuit, investigated by police for 4 months.
Person who exposed Arday's fraud:
โข Suspended from academic position
Completely broken, pro-fraud system.
You are very obviously and clearly misrepresenting Cofnas' views. Nowhere does he oppose equal opportunity. He opposes the artificial engineering of equal outcomes through means that are the exact opposite of equal opportunity, such as "positive" discrimination or race-based quotas. Literally the opposite of what you reported. Get your facts straight.
You always thought there was something a bit fishy about my claims? What happened to listening to lived experience? Or is that only to those who are politically aligned with you?
Anyway, you don't have to take it from me. This has been widely reported in the mainstream press.
https://t.co/rA8bb7hp49
https://t.co/lZId31qPcH
https://t.co/OzS7IPvVDW