Silencing critics of racial preferences

[ruby sparks]

Given the title of the first one ("How Do Asians Fit Into the American College of Cardiology’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiative?") I think it's fair to say he's obviously at least partly motivated on behalf of the Asian demographic.

A crazy reaction to institutional discrimination. Who could imagine?

Not crazy, imo. A reasonable consideration to be taken into account.

 

[Toni]

Given the title of the first one ("How Do Asians Fit Into the American College of Cardiology’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiative?") I think it's fair to say he's obviously at least partly motivated on behalf of the Asian demographic.

A crazy reaction to institutional discrimination. Who could imagine?

Well, very, very myopic.

And by ignoring the centuries of discrimination against black and brown peoples in the US, also racist.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that the myopia is preventing him from discerning how facing racism, even unacknowledged racism, in programs, by professors, and administrators and people who hand out fellowships and people who evaluate students of color, but I'm not sure that's the entire answer.

 

[Toni]

That's a different article, though.

I’m to blame for that. I read and cited the wrong paper.

I have just read the relevant, recent one.

It’s pretty much a denouncement of AA in the form of racial preferences at college admission stage (and not just in cardiology, or even just medicine) and calls for its end.

It is certainly being reported here and there that he has been sacked, but it does not seem to be officially confirmed, nor has Dr Wang reported it.

You are not to blame for my lack of rigor.

IMO, it is really good that two papers were noted. Likely there are more. And, as I've written up thread, it is extremely likely that his institution was aware of his earlier paper and the second one (assuming that there are not more such papers) was seen as a pattern of seeking to publish articles using his ties to the university/medical school while publishing an article that put forth views and was absolutely counter to university policy. It would have been harder, perhaps, for the administration to criticize him if he had written an opinion piece.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's a different article, though.

I’m to blame for that. I read and cited the wrong paper.

I have just read the relevant, recent one.

It’s pretty much a denouncement of AA in the form of racial preferences at college admission stage (and not just in cardiology, or even just medicine) and calls for its end.

It is certainly being reported here and there that he has been sacked, but it does not seem to be officially confirmed, nor has Dr Wang reported it.

You are not to blame for my lack of rigor.

IMO, it is really good that two papers were noted. Likely there are more. And, as I've written up thread, it is extremely likely that his institution was aware of his earlier paper and the second one (assuming that there are not more such papers) was seen as a pattern of seeking to publish articles using his ties to the university/medical school while publishing an article that put forth views and was absolutely counter to university policy. It would have been harder, perhaps, for the administration to criticize him if he had written an opinion piece.

Well, I read that he has also said that the gender wage gap does not exist, so if that’s true he does seem to be a slightly controversial chap.

 

[Toni]

I was looking for something completely different when I ran across this:

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/...eart-association-s-statement-wang-paper-wrong


(my bold)

“We applaud the recent statement by the American Heart Association (AHA) denouncing the views expressed in the article by Norman C. Wang, MD, MS published by the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) that advocated for ending race-conscious policies for undergraduate and medical school admissions and argued against affirmative action initiatives, asserting, without evidence, that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are unqualified. The article lacked factual accuracy, was selectively referenced, misrepresented individuals and organizations cited, and misinterpreted data to support the author’s opinions. We also applaud the decision of the JAHA editor-in-chief for retracting the article and for agreeing to conduct a formal investigation of the journal’s peer-review and publication processes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are babbling. I pointed out that hearsay is not simply a legal term - that is it.

And I pointed out that in the particular other sense you mentioned, your charge failed to. And I also gave a more careful explanation, even if you call it "babbling" because you do not understand it.

Not in my book.

What is not in your book? That intuitive probabilistic assessments are a class of intuitions? Well, there is a reason they are intuitive. But call them as you like, my points are about intuitive probabilistic assessments.

No, you don't. As far as you know, she heard from the a maintenance worker.

And that is very, very improbable as the source of her assessment.

No, I understand that someone's opinion about a fact is not evidence that the fact is true while you do not.

Actually, you do not understand that someone's statements (which are as always about facts) provide in general some evidence of those facts, which can go from extremely weak to very strong, depending on context.

To silence someone means to prevent them from speaking out. Dr. Wang's removal from the directorship does not prevent him from speaking out especially if he is tenured. You do realize that one of the reasons for tenure is to protect professors from fearing to speak out.

There are different ways of silencing people. Preventing them from speaking out is one way, but another one is making threats and taking other actions so that speaking out would be for them more costly than they are willing to endure. In this particular case, though, the silencing would consist in the retracting of the article, whereas the punishment might or might not work against him, but it will probably work against others.

 

[laughing dog]

And I pointed out that in the particular other sense you mentioned, your charge failed to. And I also gave a more careful explanation, even if you call it "babbling" because you do not understand it.

That response began with this word salad “No, of course I do not believe information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.” So no one could have understood it - it is babble. Then it appears you confused a definition of hearsay (which was in parenthesis)as some sort of observation about your views. Which makes your observation about not understanding pretty ironic.

And that is very, very improbable as the source of her assessment.

You have no idea from whom she may have heard something (if at all). Universities are gossip mills. There is no good reason to believe that she heard it from a person of high position.

Actually, you do not understand that someone's statements (which are as always about facts) provide in general some evidence of those facts, which can go from extremely weak to very strong, depending on context.

A statement is a clear expression of speech or writing. “God is my savior” is a statement but it is not about a fact, but a belief. So your claim is false.

A statement can mean a formal or official account of an event, but we are not talking about a court room. In that sense a statement cannot include hearsay, since hearsay is not an official account of facts. It is someone’s belief about a fact or facts.

If someone tweets "Jesus is the Son of God", that is not evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. IMO, rational discussion is not possible with someone who thinks otherwise.

There are different ways of silencing people. Preventing them from speaking out is one way, but another one is making threats and taking other actions so that speaking out would be for them more costly than they are willing to endure. In this particular case, though, the silencing would consist in the retracting of the article, whereas the punishment might or might not work against him, but it will probably work against others.

That is unrelated to do with his removal from the directorship. It is a tacit agreement with my initial observation that "Anyway, Dr Wang is not silenced by his removal as fellowship director. "

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That response began with this word salad “No, of course I do not believe information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.” So no one could have understood it - it is babble.

It was in reply to your charge that I believe hearsay, which you defined as "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate...", so I was saying of course I do not do what you accuse me of. That is not babble.

Then it appears you confused a definition of hearsay (which was in parenthesis)as some sort of observation about your views. Which makes your observation about not understanding pretty ironic.

As you were accusing me of believing hearsay, it seems it was obviously about my views. You may not have said that directly, but it was clear, as you were saying I believed hearsay was evidence, and you kept saying that what I took for evidence was hearsay, only to then give that definition.

You have no idea from whom she may have heard something (if at all). Universities are gossip mills. There is no good reason to believe that she heard it from a person of high position.

She herself is in a high position. She is in a position where you would expect her to know something as big as this. And she asserts it with confidence. Of course it's good evidence. Maybe it's not conclusive evidence, but there is further evidence, as I've been pointing out.

A statement is a clear expression of speech or writing. “God is my savior” is a statement but it is not about a fact, but a belief. So your claim is false.

Okay, so I'm saying that they assert that some facts obtain, but you are saying it's only about facts if true. We are using the words differently. But no matter. The example works just as well, regardless of terminology. This particular statement provides negligible evidence to someone in my position, because I've dealt with such statements before, thought about it, etc. If the statement is made to a kid by her parents, she would be rational to give some non-negligible probability to the statement, at least at first. In other words, it provides some evidence in support of the claim that God is the savior of the claimant. How good the evidence is depends on the epistemic situation of the person making the assessment of course, and that includes what that person can tell about the person making the statement - obviously.

A statement can mean a formal or official account of an event, but we are not talking about a court room. In that sense a statement cannot include hearsay, since hearsay is not an official account of facts. It is someone’s belief about a fact or facts.

That's a different meaning of "statement" and not relevant.

If someone tweets "Jesus is the Son of God", that is not evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.

It's not evidence to whom? To someone who has already concluded that that is false, with an overwhelming about of evidence?

I would say it is evidence, but negligible (what are the odds that that person has figured with some new sort of argument that Jesus is the son of God? Almost zero, negligible, so I would ignore it).

But it is negligible to me because I have already assessed such kind of claims, so our epistemic position includes that. Consider the case in which the claim is made by parents to their children. Or suppose there is some uncontacted tribe. Missionaries go and tell them that Jesus is the Son of God. Maybe the people from that tribe are not in an epistemic position to rule it out beyond a reasonable doubt immediately - though I think they should after a few hours of consideration, but maybe (probably) not right away.


Obviously, in the case under consideration, the statement is much stronger evidence, to someone in my position. It is not conclusive, but then there are other pieces of evidence, as I've been explaining. Incidentally, given that you have no doubt that he was removed, do you have that belief on faith? Or do you have other pieces of evidence that you have not shared?

That is unrelated to do with his removal from the directorship. It is a tacit agreement with my initial observation that "Anyway, Dr Wang is not silenced by his removal as fellowship director. "

That is a direct reply to your claim "To silence someone means to prevent them from speaking out. Dr. Wang's removal from the directorship does not prevent him from speaking out especially if he is tenured. You do realize that one of the reasons for tenure is to protect professors from fearing to speak out."

In any case, I already showed that you were assessing the matter in an improper manner. Remember, you claimed "Taking away his directorship will not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing, so he would have to choose to be silent. "