quillette.com
tl;dr: an accepted paper about to be published has been last-minute censored by two mathematics journals due to SJW insider influence. Outrageous behavior.
The paper in question:
/r/math discussion:
reddit.com
Academic censorship in math
Daniel Long
Robert Lewis
Is there anything we can do? Email someone or something?
Juan Phillips
The content of this paper is utter shit, written at a high school level, and it should have never have come close to publication. Pic related, the author sees fit to prove "for completeness" that a distribution is more variable if and only if it has a higher variance. Sage because this is either an intentionally manufactured controversy, or just a mass moral outrage that makes everyone involved look ridiculous.
Christian Cook
no, this is why science has lost all credibility. the jews have a stranglehold on these academic journals, and science disappears if it's not (((approved))) by them and stuck behind their massive paywalls. "Recent studies show, everything our diversity propaganda shows is right!!". The whole institution must come down.
Ryder Cooper
nature.com
Academia was destroyed. You basically need papers published roughly equal to your age to be considered for a position, which puts the strain to publish over the need to be accurate or even able to reproduce your own conclusions.
Additionally, funding is generally for grants and research in political/corporate interests (pollution, climate change, gender theory, etc). Coming back to them with the "wrong" results is a quick way to lose your credibility and job. Dissent is a job loss or even tenure in some cases. Journals and papers will ridicule you and drum you out of the field for wrongthink.
This puts immense stress to stay in line, push the right narrative and latch onto particular groups that all cite each other, further pushing one another to the top and recommending each other for tenure and other positions.
Compounding this is the fact the vast majority cant reproduce their own results, let alone someone else's. It's academic fraud where the media pushes the "studies" they want for their narrative and ignores any others as fringe or outright wrong/racist/etc.
It's literally an industry, not a field of academic research. Published work gets you credit, more citations, more grants, university/college more funding and publicity and other benefits. Proving something is wrong hurts all these things. Proving a peer is wrong is tantamount to career suicide.
This is why Darwinism is dead for all intents and purposes. It's only rolled out to say Christians are so dumb, look at them deny evolution and laugh. Boasian anthropology rules now where everything is spectrums and race is a construct and so on. Contradicting it is a good way to be racist, bigoted, anti-science, etc.
Einstein physics destroyed the field and has crippled it for 100 years now. Newtonian physics had to be rewritten to try and plug the numerous holes in Einsteins work, which is all stolen from numerous scientists. Everything he's produced can be explained with aether physics from the 1800s to early 1900s, even e=mc^2, his mercury predictions and even Newton back in 1700s predicted light and mass connection and atomic energy. 50 years after his relativity, he could not prove fucking anything - momentum still did not fit and they were discussing how to rewrite gravitational theory to fix it when Newtonian phsyics explained it all. To this day, they still make up imaginary theories and fields to explain the holes in relativity and have no way to test them - its all bullshit self wanking mental gymnastics.
Dominic Hernandez
Nice reddit spacing
Gabriel Rivera
They are called paragraphs you mongoloid.
Mason Russell
Paragraphs are not one sentence long, redditor.
Connor Roberts
so basically it is a paper which observes gender in nature and it was banned because gay frogs have a right to be proud too?
Wyatt Myers
1st paragraph - 2 sentences.
2nd paragraph - 4 sentences.
3rd paragraph - 1 sentence.
4th paragraph - 2 sentences.
5th paragraph - 4 sentences.
6th paragraph - 4 sentences.
7th paragraph - 7 sentences.
Avg paragraph length = about 3.5 sentences. Each paragraph deals with a new thought or topic. That is how you write. They arent one sentence statements outside of the 3rd one, which could have been pushed up. The tiny reply box makes them look bigger when typing out, too, which makes me want to make a new paragraph instead of a wall of text.
So.
Fuck.
You.
Nigger.
Chase James
thats
not reddit spacing
this is
reddit spacing
you
nigger
Carter Clark
I'm not seeing the difference
Evan King
A retarded spic like you wouldn't.
Landon Murphy
This is not so much about the quality of the paper itself, but about the manner in which it was dealt with. The jewish backstabbing and SJW threats.
Landon Bell
I understand the thread topic isn't about the paper itself, but "accepted and published" doesn't refer to a newspaper and editorial staff. It means it was reviewed by authorities within the mathematical community and accepted as "likely true" at worst.
Easton Gutierrez
Oh fug! I love that word. Well played.
Brayden Cox
The article shouldn't have been accepted to any scientific journal without heavy revisions. From what I can gather online, it looks like one of the journal editors "went rogue" and tried to sneak the article in, even though it was below their standards, and then the other editors overreacted (?) by removing it abruptly and without going through the usual removal process.
Samuel Fisher
The /r/math crowd are such insufferable faggots, it's a shame that our math board isn't highly active.
Hunter Green
(checked)
a shame indeed user
Jackson Thompson
Benjamin Taylor
So in short, some good goy took a bribe to undermine the scientific process and shit on his entire lifes work.
Well, that's pretty much par for the course at this point. Why not?
Mason Garcia
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
Jeremiah Barnes
I don't think so. I think it's just one of the weirdos, in this case a right-wing weirdo, that get tenured jobs in science from time to time. A classic example is the Rutgers professor who wrote this: doronzeilberger.blogspot.com
Gavin Lopez
>the jews have a stranglehold on these academic journals, and science disappears if it's not (((approved))) by them and stuck behind their massive paywalls.
I didn't hear you complaining when they did it to Bruce Rind.
Isaac Sanchez
This is common knowledge thats get taught in school about paradise birds. Why is this relevant?
Hunter Davis
It's relevant because rather than just observing this variance, the author has proposed a mathematical model to describe it.
Matthew Watson
Because of the censorship.
Josiah Fisher
The second, but we can use this thread as a proof that shils are trying to show us as a bunch of retards.
Jeremiah Cook
you're a fucking retard. if they were good writers, or could think independently at all, they wouldn't have specialized in quantitative methods. and, well respected papers in quantitative circles are commonly written by chinks, ruskies and others with terrible english and no one cares. ppl who specialize in quantitative methods want to see novel and "beautiful" mathematical formulas, which are useful in predicting outcomes. go kill yourself
Jeremiah Phillips
Whats wrong with that statement? That is true of the normal distribution…
Levi Gray
Juan Robinson
if you dont pay protection, by including a tanny on your paper or a woman, then they come after you.
Thomas Martinez
Math Ph.D. student here.
Paper Criticisms:
1) The model is not good.
2) The author shows a failure to have properly consulted the literature by redefining existing terms (my memory fails me, but the concept of "more variable" in this paper is known by another name to probabilists…)
3) The results are absolutely trivial to prove. I'll give that this isn't a serious problem in this flavor of paper, though - the meat of the paper is the model.
Specific Model Criticisms:
1) The model assumes a very, very rigid homogeneity of sex A's selection criteria.
2) The model assumes that sex A never "settles down" - that is, mating is only ever done by "the best" members of sex B. This is not what we observe - less fit members of both sexes mate in real life, even among selective species.
3) The model ignores selectivity by members of sex B.
The upshot is that the model is too simplistic, and the results are too trivial. It's the "cannonball being fired in a vacuum" problem: we don't ever fire cannonballs in vacuums.
This isn't a paper that should've been published in a journal. Although my gut reaction is that is a shill (they have not *explained* why the paper is shit), I am forced to concur with them on this point. It is a good undergraduate honor's thesis paper (and is arguably an acceptable Master's thesis paper), but it is not journal-worthy… to respond to , even *with* heavy revisions.
The arxiv exists for a reason. Mathematicians are the ones behind a somewhat large push to move to the arxiv, which is not paywalled. Although much other science is still under the heel of journal paywalls, it is becoming standard practice to publish papers in the arxiv before they hit a journal. (Journal publications *look better* on a CV, but a paper that is only on the arxiv can be very good even despite a failure to publish in a journal.)
This paper got published to the arxiv. This is a paper that perhaps belongs on the arxiv - if this person is an undergraduate or master's student, then this is still going to help their career later on: "Oh hey, this person's capable of doing very basic research-ey type things. Sure, the paper's trash, but at this particular level this is not bad…"
Unfortunately, the author has made a bit of a fool of themselves by pushing that article as they have, and people might second guess hiring him for an academic position…but if not for that article, I see absolutely no reason that this paper should harm his career as it stands, so long as he is not at the Ph.D. level…
Oliver Reyes
They never learn.
Jack Myers
There is that word again. The only pseudoscience is when you do not publish your data but still try to push a conclusion that cannot be tested by others on account of your data and methodology not being publicly available. It is attacking the author, not the paper, when these subversive kikes bring up that word. It is as toothless as 'racist' now.