Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
The positions weren't in biology and plenty of evangelicals believe in evolution, but congratulations on a really pathetic excuse to avoid admitting that I proved you wrong.

if you make an absolute claim, the other person only needs a single counter-example to prove you wrong. you can't shift the goalposts at the last moment to ignore their counter-example and claim that proves you right.

Originally posted by jdbolick

I still have no idea what you think this is supposed to mean. He did get the position only to lose it after his fraud was exposed.

sure, but one of your unfounded assumptions is that he only got the job because of his fraud in the first place.

Originally posted by jdbolick
You claimed that academia doesn't have agenda and that researchers like to attack popular ideas rather than go along with them, whereas I provided studies showing that there is a strong and persistent bias against those who do not share socially liberal beliefs

another of your unfounded assumptions is that the truth must be in the center of the political spectrum and therefore any truth-seeking institution must have equal numbers of left and right voices. i'm sorry, but that''s a gray fallacy.

also, you didn't really 'provide studies'. you made partial citations to two papers, one of which is almost a generation old. any chance of a full citation so we know we're all looking at the same paper? also, any chance of you noting the irony of citing academic papers of a certain view to prove that academia has the opposite view?

(+0)(-1)

sup cuiv, how's your morning so far?

Originally posted by jdbolick

You claimed that academia doesn't have agenda and that researchers like to attack popular ideas rather than go along with them, whereas I provided studies showing that there is a strong and persistent bias against those who do not share socially liberal beliefs and LaCour's study went largely unchallenged precisely because it advocated a popular idea. Somewhat interestingly, Diederik Stapel's far more pervasive fraud also dealt with exposure effects and priming like that faked by LaCour. Stapel told the New York Times that one of the reasons he got away with his fraud for so many years without being challenged is that he "followed from the research that had come before, that it was just this extra step that everybody was waiting for.."

Nowhere did you prove that academia has an agenda. You shared one story that was at best vaguely related. I also never claimed researchers attack popular ideas instead of going along with them. Even then, you didn't disprove that point, you shared a study showing evangelical christians are not overly represented in academia.

So in one post you've proven yourself wrong once and I've proven you wrong twice.

Originally posted by jdbolick

No, you were completely wrong, but first let's highlight the fact that you just admitted that you couldn't be bothered to learn the basic facts of the situation before making multiple comments about it.

I claimed that if he got the position a shitstorm would come in to discredit him. A shitstorm came in to discredit him. That would be completely correct. The fact that I was completely correct without even caring to look into it is actually even more impressive.

Over/under 2 posts before even he realizes he's wrong and resorts to semantics to try to salvage a stalemate out of the argument

Guys who take off their sunglasses when entering a building and proceed to stick them on the back of the collar of their shirt or place them facing backwards off of their head look stupid.

Originally posted by rams78110
Nowhere did you prove that academia has an agenda.
Originally posted by jdbolick
(Academia) is, however, highly ideological and partisan, particularly in the social sciences. Not only are conservatives woefully underrepresented (<10% Republican in every survey I can find), but various studies have shown that given otherwise equal candidates departments will discriminate against evangelical Christian applicants to grad school (Gartner, 1986) and conservatives for faculty positions (Inbar & Lammers, 2012). It's also no secret that pursuing socially liberal results will secure more grant funding and lead to professional advancement while doing the opposite risks ostracism and even employment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by rams78110
I also never claimed researchers attack popular ideas instead of going along with them.
Originally posted by rams78110
If an idea starts gaining steam in academia, it is in spite of multiple people trying to bring it down to further their own careers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by rams78110
I claimed that if he got the position a shitstorm would come in to discredit him. A shitstorm came in to discredit him. That would be completely correct. The fact that I was completely correct without even caring to look into it is actually even more impressive.
Originally posted by jdbolick
As for why you were wrong, LaCour's fraud was discovered when another researcher attempted to expand on his work and found that their results didn't match up. It didn't have anything to do with him getting the position at Princeton, contrary to what you claimed would happen.

similarly...
Originally posted by jdbolick
Princeton offered that guy a position based on his conclusion and the attention it received
Originally posted by jdbolick
It didn't have anything to do with him getting the position at Princeton

what a fun game.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-to-stop-calling-midget-raisins-midget/

“The action would clarify AMS grade standards by eliminating the use of the term ‘midget,’ while consistently using the term ‘small’ for raisins graded in that category,” the USDA said in the proposed rule. “The industry has used the two grade terms interchangeably for years. The proposed grade standards would be applied uniformly by all handlers.”

“These changes would modernize and clarify the standards by removing dual terminology for the same requirement,” the agency said.

The government said the change was prompted by a request from the Little People of America, a nonprofit membership organization for people of short stature.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Guys who take off their sunglasses when entering a building and proceed to stick them on the back of the collar of their shirt or place them facing backwards off of their head look stupid.

I have a good friend who does this and I just want to slap him

Originally posted by seths99
I have a good friend who does this and I just want to slap him
Do it!

Slap him so hard his sunglasses spin round.

imagine a squirrel fatter than itself.