I read it: it is a real paper, professionally written in an staid tone. Therefore, even if the premise is entirely wrong, even if you disagree with every single word, there is no reason for it to be "retracted".
Instead of signing petitions full of buzzwords and posting solitary anecdotes on Twitter, opponents of the paper should write a rebuttal and refute the author's claims.
In my view not about disagreement or agreement. It's about being completely outdated, already debated and abandoned viewpoint from highly active senior citizen. Good for him for being active, but we cant just entertain elderly.
Main support for his viewpoint comes from references to articles from 70's and 90s.
Just to be clear: There is nothing wrong with being old researcher. But we must require the same relevance and rigour from them as we do from the young.
The good thing about digital publishing is that virtually no "entertaining" of authors is required of anyone. I highly doubt this 6-page paper in a low-impact Springer journal significantly consumed anyone's electronic or physical resources.
Moreover, only those who specifically seek it will ever be confronted with the paper. No one is forcing researchers to attend seminars or conferences, or otherwise disturbing them. The work is simply made available online for anyone who wants to read it. (Apparently it has already been downloaded thousands of times.)
I disagree with the implication that "outdated", "debated", and "abandoned" ideas should be excluded from publication. The merits of any idea should be determined by endless, open-ended, free debate, without any deference to whatever is and is not presently "in fashion".
Your broader point, about the composition of the academic community and the long tail of elderly professors occupying the limited research positions at universities, is of course a serious concern. Retracting unfashionable papers by older authors is not a solution.
As I recall there is an example of a study that Feynman was wont to remind people of, done by a researcher back in the 30's that pretty much has never been cited once, but nevertheless goes into the great lengths one has to go to properly control for training rats.
Point being, just because a study is old, doesn't mean it's useless.
Frankly, if it weren't for my absolute refusal to support the academic publishing complex and the gatekeeping of knowledge, I'd give his article a read, and would be interested in being pointed in the direction of some of the papers that have challenged his conclusions.
I agree that the arguments he made are not supported by evidence, but this is our judgment of his paper, not a reason to retract it and prevent other people from reading it.
The fact that the paper is written in a scholarly tone is obviously relevant. If it was spam or "junk mail", or some sort of violent sermon or political philippic, then of course there is no reason for it to stay online. But it's not. It's obviously a real, genuine academic paper.
Looking for errors in the paper is exactly what peer review and retraction is for. Even if it mimics the form of an academic paper it doesn’t progress the debate if all it is using is already discredited or unsupported. As other commentators have pointed out the cites that he uses are way out of date and this isn’t advancing the field.
It serves no ones to repetitively rebut the same mistakes over and over again. While at the same time such papers lend false credibility to damaging ideas.
Let's turn the discussion from race to institutional geriatrics.
Lawrence Mead (the author) is 77 years old (few years too old to be considered as a boomer)
Jonathan Imber (Editor-in-Chief ‘Society’ Journal) seems to be 71. (His CV says "London School of Economics and Political Science, 1972-73" and he was the Class of 1949 Professor in Ethics).
Just by looking at the references in his article it's clear that Mead is not kept up with the field since late 90s. It's blast from the past.
As populations age, people in scientific institutions and publications age as well. Unlike many other professions, academics can stay active and hang into important positions semi-retired until their 80's. There is nothing wrong with that in individual level, but if they keep occupying an overly large portion of important positions in science it becomes a bottleneck that sustains old outdated viewpoints.
It seems that Lawrence Mead's work was criticized and debated in the 80s and 90s and it was laid to rest. Instead of asking for a retraction, scholars should look deeply into the relevance of the journals, universities, and how up to date people in their positions are. It's perfectly understandable that organizations filled with people who started their careers in the 70s don't have BIPOC among them.
If your scientific paper doesn’t adhere to what the mob believes, you must retract. This is America!
It’s funny that “people of color” has been altered to remove Asians. I guess Asians have achieved too much success in racist America? I wonder how they did it? Maybe this paper can shed some light. I better read it quickly, before the mob gets their way.
If I was Russian disinformation I'd be plowing out a lot of petitions like these.
They would have some credibility if they occasionally attacked something truly ridiculous like String Theory, but it's easier to paint the bike shed that no one would ever have used.
.... The United States is an individualist society where most people seek to realize personal goals and values out in the world. This unusual, inner-driven culture was the chief reason why first Europe, then Britain, and finally America came to lead the world. But today, our deepest problems derive from groups and nations that reflect the more passive, deferential temperament of the non-West. The long-term poor and many immigrants have difficulties assimilating in America mainly because they are less inner-driven than the norm. Abroad, the United States faces challenges from Asia, which is collective-minded, and also from many poorly-governed countries in the developing world. The chief threat to American leadership is no longer foreign rivals like China but the decay of individualism within our own society.
17 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 49.3 ms ] threadLawrence M. Mead
Journal: Society
Abstract:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-020-00496-1
Instead of signing petitions full of buzzwords and posting solitary anecdotes on Twitter, opponents of the paper should write a rebuttal and refute the author's claims.
In my view not about disagreement or agreement. It's about being completely outdated, already debated and abandoned viewpoint from highly active senior citizen. Good for him for being active, but we cant just entertain elderly.
Main support for his viewpoint comes from references to articles from 70's and 90s.
Just to be clear: There is nothing wrong with being old researcher. But we must require the same relevance and rigour from them as we do from the young.
Moreover, only those who specifically seek it will ever be confronted with the paper. No one is forcing researchers to attend seminars or conferences, or otherwise disturbing them. The work is simply made available online for anyone who wants to read it. (Apparently it has already been downloaded thousands of times.)
I disagree with the implication that "outdated", "debated", and "abandoned" ideas should be excluded from publication. The merits of any idea should be determined by endless, open-ended, free debate, without any deference to whatever is and is not presently "in fashion".
Your broader point, about the composition of the academic community and the long tail of elderly professors occupying the limited research positions at universities, is of course a serious concern. Retracting unfashionable papers by older authors is not a solution.
Point being, just because a study is old, doesn't mean it's useless.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/02/the_rat_experi...
Frankly, if it weren't for my absolute refusal to support the academic publishing complex and the gatekeeping of knowledge, I'd give his article a read, and would be interested in being pointed in the direction of some of the papers that have challenged his conclusions.
The fact that the paper is written in a scholarly tone is obviously relevant. If it was spam or "junk mail", or some sort of violent sermon or political philippic, then of course there is no reason for it to stay online. But it's not. It's obviously a real, genuine academic paper.
It serves no ones to repetitively rebut the same mistakes over and over again. While at the same time such papers lend false credibility to damaging ideas.
What do you think about this retraction?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831678/
Much like "free speech", the specific things it's used to support and not support is often more revealing than the claimed position itself.
Lawrence Mead (the author) is 77 years old (few years too old to be considered as a boomer)
Jonathan Imber (Editor-in-Chief ‘Society’ Journal) seems to be 71. (His CV says "London School of Economics and Political Science, 1972-73" and he was the Class of 1949 Professor in Ethics).
Just by looking at the references in his article it's clear that Mead is not kept up with the field since late 90s. It's blast from the past.
As populations age, people in scientific institutions and publications age as well. Unlike many other professions, academics can stay active and hang into important positions semi-retired until their 80's. There is nothing wrong with that in individual level, but if they keep occupying an overly large portion of important positions in science it becomes a bottleneck that sustains old outdated viewpoints.
It seems that Lawrence Mead's work was criticized and debated in the 80s and 90s and it was laid to rest. Instead of asking for a retraction, scholars should look deeply into the relevance of the journals, universities, and how up to date people in their positions are. It's perfectly understandable that organizations filled with people who started their careers in the 70s don't have BIPOC among them.
Old academics are valuable but having people in high positions who have not contributed meaningfully for decades is not acceptable.
People should step down when they can't keep up. Repeating arguments from 20-30 years ago without anything new is disgrace.
It’s funny that “people of color” has been altered to remove Asians. I guess Asians have achieved too much success in racist America? I wonder how they did it? Maybe this paper can shed some light. I better read it quickly, before the mob gets their way.
They would have some credibility if they occasionally attacked something truly ridiculous like String Theory, but it's easier to paint the bike shed that no one would ever have used.
https://www.amazon.com/Burdens-Freedom-Cultural-Difference-A...
.... The United States is an individualist society where most people seek to realize personal goals and values out in the world. This unusual, inner-driven culture was the chief reason why first Europe, then Britain, and finally America came to lead the world. But today, our deepest problems derive from groups and nations that reflect the more passive, deferential temperament of the non-West. The long-term poor and many immigrants have difficulties assimilating in America mainly because they are less inner-driven than the norm. Abroad, the United States faces challenges from Asia, which is collective-minded, and also from many poorly-governed countries in the developing world. The chief threat to American leadership is no longer foreign rivals like China but the decay of individualism within our own society.
Burdens of Freedom Lawrence M. Mead Fall 2016 https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/burdens-of-f...