My favorite pieces are your critiques of researchers and other science journalists who are either doing shoddy work or overclaiming based on the available evidence. Ideally this could be tied into a thoughtful epistemology. How do we know when evidence is sufficient to strongly support a claim? What is a good evidentiary threshold? What makes for a good empirical test of a theory or hypothesis? How do we know when we've reached a point when something is settled and no longer needs rigorous debate?
Actually, although "thoughtful epistemology" and all that technical stuff sounds fine, I'd much rather a journalist linked that to wider the story, which is the human reality of why the systems we have are the way they are.
Scientists are people, so their motives, their needs, their emotions and how those combine with bureaucracies to form institutions are what actually determine what happens in science. And only journalists cover people. Lots of people cover "thoughtful epistemology". For example epistemologists.
Just holding scientists to a high standard won't do if you're not actually investigating what leads them to fail. It's usually their mortgage, and pressure to make sure it's paid. I'm not talking about corruption, people make their living from doing science it's not abstract. You need funding. It comes with requirements. Those introduce incentives. The incentives can become perverse. That's why it goes wrong. That's the story.
I critically assess Simpson and Srinivasan’s (2018) defense of some instances of no-platforming at universities. I raise, and then analyse, three questions: What does it mean for a once-controversial issue to be “settled”? What should be done when two or more academic disciplines come to different judgments about the competence of a scholar or the admissibility of a set of ideas? Which fields of inquiry qualify as genuine academic disciplines? In all three cases I contend that epistemic criteria must be paramount, and sociological criteria secondary. I illustrate, with explicit examples, some of the ways in which purported judgments concerning “disciplinary competence” or appeals to “settled science” can be employed to disguise what is in fact the suppression of dissident views on nakedly ideological grounds.
The context is that universities are a place to discuss different points of view on a topic, but we all agree it is unreasonable for a university to be required host a flat earth talk in the name of viewpoint diversity.
>At some point before the relaunch, I’m also going to solicit input from my subscribers about what they want to see (or don’t want to see)
most of the value i get from this substack is you rolling up your sleeves and dissecting the studies behind stories in the news (doesn't have to be gender stuff) and stress-testing the claims made by the people who publish the study.
i strongly feel that researchers have mal-incentives around their scientific endeavors, and that these mal-incentives distort the conclusions about what the research actual says (or does not say).
so if you're looking to maintain or increase subscriptions, a possible method for doing so is to apply your talent for "deconstructing research narratives" more broadly to other topics in the news.
I'd also be interested in the process that you use to dissect studies. Do you have a specific checklists or is it just instinct and practice?
A new part of my job is attempting to teach people critical appraisal skills and I'm curious about your process as I'm still very much learning how to critically appraise research, but then also how to teach it so that people can understand it (and hopefully actually do it).
2. Don’t worry at all about keep a publishing schedule, or about increasing number of articles, etc. quantity gets annoying if the quality suffers. There’s plenty of other stuff to read in the meantime.
Signed: a long-time subscriber, occasionally a paying one
also: please keep in mind that "i stress-tested the study/report for you and it seems solid." is also something i find valuable, especially when combined with your demonstrated willingness to set the record straight should your opinion change or new facts come to light.
as a subscriber, there's value in critical affirmation as well as critical debunking.
Ultimately though it's going to be the choice of subject matter that makes or breaks the reporting.
you and Katie excel when leaning into the zeitgeist.
Im glad you're taking a break. Im glad you have bigger projects. Sometimes im reading or listening or watching something or someone and i worry how the person who created it can possibly pay their bills. unless they have a normal job. Whats a normal job? any job that pays the bills. if a job doesnt pay the bills its not a job. its a hobby. eventually minor league baseball players have to get real.
I found this post while trying to find an article i read that debunked claims laws restricting gender "care" have caused harm. i remember the article said some of support for these claims were based on periods prior to the time these laws were enacted. If this type of work is beneficial to you, even as source material for future books, i hope you will continue. but I understand why you may not want to. it cant be easy to be the most hated guy on bsky. on the other hand you get to chat with the nice and hip female on blocked and reported. so its not all bad
Heres link to scene from micheal clayton which may or may not relate
I hope you will continue to cover important developments in the gender medicine field, and my general recommendation would be to find another area where you can develop real depth of expertise, rather than trying to be a commentator on a broad variety of topics. There are plenty of journalists filling that role, and I think that the best use of your talents is to do deep dives on medical/social science controversies.
I’m curious what the slightly different focus will be. I like your articles where you debunk bad science the best, and I hope you continue to do those.
Good luck with the final lap on the book! No requests from me, except to say I enjoy the occasional weird or funny post alongside the investigative and opinion stuff. Loved the very strange short story. Just give us more Jesse, more of all the Jesses.
My understanding is that this will extend your subscription! If it doesn't please let me know as that obviously would be an unacceptable outcome. If need be I'll raise it with Substack.
Jesse: I'd like an occasional post on the cute girls you wish you could marry! With LOTS of pictures! It's not creepy at all! It's Rpmance! One lucky lady might answer the call!
But seriously folks, a deep dive into where all those millions that gets swallowed into the research black hole go? Do scientists get a rich ride on the gravy train? Who decides what they get paid? Is it a profit racket for universities? All that money for cancer research and we still have cancer! And death still ends all lives! Oh, if anyone knows of a book written on these themes, I'd love a recommendation.
My favorite pieces are your critiques of researchers and other science journalists who are either doing shoddy work or overclaiming based on the available evidence. Ideally this could be tied into a thoughtful epistemology. How do we know when evidence is sufficient to strongly support a claim? What is a good evidentiary threshold? What makes for a good empirical test of a theory or hypothesis? How do we know when we've reached a point when something is settled and no longer needs rigorous debate?
Actually, although "thoughtful epistemology" and all that technical stuff sounds fine, I'd much rather a journalist linked that to wider the story, which is the human reality of why the systems we have are the way they are.
Scientists are people, so their motives, their needs, their emotions and how those combine with bureaucracies to form institutions are what actually determine what happens in science. And only journalists cover people. Lots of people cover "thoughtful epistemology". For example epistemologists.
Just holding scientists to a high standard won't do if you're not actually investigating what leads them to fail. It's usually their mortgage, and pressure to make sure it's paid. I'm not talking about corruption, people make their living from doing science it's not abstract. You need funding. It comes with requirements. Those introduce incentives. The incentives can become perverse. That's why it goes wrong. That's the story.
The book Snowball in a Blizzard is really good about those questions as to medicine—and it’s more complicated than I had thought.
There's a great essay on "no debate" in academia by Sokal that just came out:
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/6/1/318
I critically assess Simpson and Srinivasan’s (2018) defense of some instances of no-platforming at universities. I raise, and then analyse, three questions: What does it mean for a once-controversial issue to be “settled”? What should be done when two or more academic disciplines come to different judgments about the competence of a scholar or the admissibility of a set of ideas? Which fields of inquiry qualify as genuine academic disciplines? In all three cases I contend that epistemic criteria must be paramount, and sociological criteria secondary. I illustrate, with explicit examples, some of the ways in which purported judgments concerning “disciplinary competence” or appeals to “settled science” can be employed to disguise what is in fact the suppression of dissident views on nakedly ideological grounds.
The context is that universities are a place to discuss different points of view on a topic, but we all agree it is unreasonable for a university to be required host a flat earth talk in the name of viewpoint diversity.
> How do we know when we've reached a point when something is settled and no longer needs rigorous debate?
To reach that point, you'd need to know that it's impossible for new evidence to emerge.
>At some point before the relaunch, I’m also going to solicit input from my subscribers about what they want to see (or don’t want to see)
most of the value i get from this substack is you rolling up your sleeves and dissecting the studies behind stories in the news (doesn't have to be gender stuff) and stress-testing the claims made by the people who publish the study.
i strongly feel that researchers have mal-incentives around their scientific endeavors, and that these mal-incentives distort the conclusions about what the research actual says (or does not say).
so if you're looking to maintain or increase subscriptions, a possible method for doing so is to apply your talent for "deconstructing research narratives" more broadly to other topics in the news.
I'd also be interested in the process that you use to dissect studies. Do you have a specific checklists or is it just instinct and practice?
A new part of my job is attempting to teach people critical appraisal skills and I'm curious about your process as I'm still very much learning how to critically appraise research, but then also how to teach it so that people can understand it (and hopefully actually do it).
Good luck with the book crunch!
Off the cuff thoughts:
1. Hiring an assistant editor is great
2. Don’t worry at all about keep a publishing schedule, or about increasing number of articles, etc. quantity gets annoying if the quality suffers. There’s plenty of other stuff to read in the meantime.
Signed: a long-time subscriber, occasionally a paying one
also: please keep in mind that "i stress-tested the study/report for you and it seems solid." is also something i find valuable, especially when combined with your demonstrated willingness to set the record straight should your opinion change or new facts come to light.
as a subscriber, there's value in critical affirmation as well as critical debunking.
Ultimately though it's going to be the choice of subject matter that makes or breaks the reporting.
you and Katie excel when leaning into the zeitgeist.
I’m a big fan in general. My personal favorites are the gender medicine ones. It’s hard to get that quality of coverage elsewhere
Sounds interesting.
Im glad you're taking a break. Im glad you have bigger projects. Sometimes im reading or listening or watching something or someone and i worry how the person who created it can possibly pay their bills. unless they have a normal job. Whats a normal job? any job that pays the bills. if a job doesnt pay the bills its not a job. its a hobby. eventually minor league baseball players have to get real.
I found this post while trying to find an article i read that debunked claims laws restricting gender "care" have caused harm. i remember the article said some of support for these claims were based on periods prior to the time these laws were enacted. If this type of work is beneficial to you, even as source material for future books, i hope you will continue. but I understand why you may not want to. it cant be easy to be the most hated guy on bsky. on the other hand you get to chat with the nice and hip female on blocked and reported. so its not all bad
Heres link to scene from micheal clayton which may or may not relate
https://www.imdb.com/video/embed/vi2745958681/
I hope you will continue to cover important developments in the gender medicine field, and my general recommendation would be to find another area where you can develop real depth of expertise, rather than trying to be a commentator on a broad variety of topics. There are plenty of journalists filling that role, and I think that the best use of your talents is to do deep dives on medical/social science controversies.
I’m curious what the slightly different focus will be. I like your articles where you debunk bad science the best, and I hope you continue to do those.
Good luck with the final lap on the book! No requests from me, except to say I enjoy the occasional weird or funny post alongside the investigative and opinion stuff. Loved the very strange short story. Just give us more Jesse, more of all the Jesses.
Good luck and Godspeed!
Can annual subscribers get something to make up for the break, like can you push the renewal a month?
Good luck on the book!
My understanding is that this will extend your subscription! If it doesn't please let me know as that obviously would be an unacceptable outcome. If need be I'll raise it with Substack.
Jesse: I'd like an occasional post on the cute girls you wish you could marry! With LOTS of pictures! It's not creepy at all! It's Rpmance! One lucky lady might answer the call!
But seriously folks, a deep dive into where all those millions that gets swallowed into the research black hole go? Do scientists get a rich ride on the gravy train? Who decides what they get paid? Is it a profit racket for universities? All that money for cancer research and we still have cancer! And death still ends all lives! Oh, if anyone knows of a book written on these themes, I'd love a recommendation.
Thanks!