Talk:Noah Carl/Archive1

His response
I'd like to point out that Carl himself apparently responded to this page here. Perhaps it could be worked into the article somehow. Jinx (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I like how the first paragraph of his statement complains about us not being objective, which calling a socially conservative guy a "cranky grandpa" is pretty much par on the course here and nothing we're hiding. But for the statements we made that he thinks is, haven't looked into it, could issue some corrections in the article if they're accurate. 21:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A brief rebuttal:


 * HBD is a euphemism for racialism; perhaps Carl hasn't yet read the racialism article that outlines in detail why HBD (which he's a proponent of) is a pseudoscience. Furthermore, he's published several papers in the OpenPsych pseudojournals whose co-founder (Emil Kirkegaard) describes as HBD on his Twitter profile. And yes, the LCI conferences were primarily attended by proponents of HBD, most of whom are far-right/alt-right, racist, sexist etc., e.g. Richard Lynn, Jan te Nijenhuis, Edward Dutton, and Adam Perkins.


 * There was little to no mischaracterisation, with perhaps only the description of the conferences as eugenics. Also, that response was written by a bunch of far-right racists, including Richard Lynn, see Woodley et al. 2018 for a discussion.


 * If you're arguing the variation in mean IQ between populations is significantly genetic (so-called ) this is pseudoscience. In contrast scientists who study population differences in cognitive ability from a non-hereditarians perspective are not pseudoscientists. So Carl sets up a straw man, see article: There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes.Octo (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * HBD and hereditarianism are pseudosciences. If Carl wants to be taken serious as a scientist he should repudiate or at least distance himself these. As for racism, the only people supporting HBD & hereditarianism are racists with conservative to far-right political beliefs. I would love to meet a non-racist HBDer who is politically left; they don't exist.Octo (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

He's no longer using his noah.carl@nuffield.ox.ac.uk email at OpenPsych
Various people have complained to Nuffield College about Carl using his university email on OpenPsych papers.

Today he's removed the email, and replaced it with a Hotmail.

Will later upload screenshot: https://openpsych.net/paper/57 Punisher (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

More dishonesty from Carl
A few days ago I wrote that Carl reviews his own paper submissions and provided proof. He's since rushed to delete this evidence.

However, I have the screenshot before the deletion.



So basically you have Carl reviewing his own pseudoscience papers; this is the most fraudulent pseudojournals I've ever come across.Punisher (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Carl caught lying again. He now claims "When the paper was originally uploaded, the names of all the authors were accidentally listed as reviewers too. When this error was detected, all names were removed from the list of reviewers." However this is easily disproven by looking at a Google cache that shows two co-authors (Robert L. Williams, Heiner Rindermann) were never listed: https://imgur.com/a/hZ1tShU Buxton (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. The item is clearly labeled as an editorial. Nobody sensible thinks that an editorial is peer reviewed. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Outside of metadata on a journal that RationalWiki says is bullshit, is there any evidence that Carl has ever claimed that his editorial was peer reviewed? It is pretty well understood that journal editorials are NOT peer reviewed, but rather express the authors' opinions. If the entirety of the charge of self reviewing rests on the fact that when the paper was originally uploaded it contained Carl in the reviewer metadata, then this is not a worthy criticism. It is pretty easy to see how a person could do this in good faith. And it was done openly. He didn't claim that some sock puppet had reviewed it. He said that he reviewed his own work, which of course he did.
 * My point is that this is a weak argument. He said something true in a context that apparently goes against the convention. He did it in an open way that had no chance of misleading anyone. Absent some clear evidence of dishonesty, it looks more like the authors of this page are out to get him, and it makes all the other arguments on the page look weaker by association.
 * If you think otherwise, please explain why you think anyone could have been deceived into thinking that a third party reviewed this editorial when you make your edit. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will make this single comment, without any additional dialog. This is obviously equivalent to discussion. I can now justify any future edit via this single talkpage post. 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the intent behind having discussion before making edits. If you don't have any useful information or relevant arguments that you can add when making a revert, then you probably shouldn't be making it. I think that making allegations lightly against people with different politics significantly diminishes the purpose of this site. I'll point out that Noah Carl is making arguments like this himself. And the over heated and unsupportable rhetoric here kind of make his case for him. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Racist Noah Carl in newspapers across Britain

 * "Hundreds of academics oppose research fellow’s eugenics work on discredited ‘race sciences"
 * "More than 200 academics sign open letter accusing Cambridge don of publishing 'racist pseudoscience"
 * "Cambridge dons revolt over ‘racist’ fellow’s role"
 * "Discredited race science’: Academics unite against ‘eugenicist’ given Cambridge fellowship"

Another article:

Woodland (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

can you help put some of these sources on the article? Woodland (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * it's just a bunch of crackpot SJW scholars who don't have the skills to understand Carl's work let alone debunk it. It's some postmodernist delusional "everyone's the same" socially-fashionable manchildren screaming that they don't like it. There is absolutely zero argument or refutation in the letter. 82.132.237.3 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed your user rights so that you should now be able to edit the page yourself. Spud (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)