Talk:Noah Carl

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

His response[edit]

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. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A brief rebuttal:

First, I would like to address the claim that I am an “HBD pseudoscientist”. The most likely reason for this designation is that I attended and spoke at the London Conference on Intelligence, an academic conference held for several years in London, which dealt with topics such as population differences in cognitive ability (as well as many other topics).

The conference was widely mischaracterised in the media, and some of us who attended responded via a peer-reviewed correspondence in the journal Intelligence. To quote from our correspondence.

  • 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.

RationalWiki seems to follow a rather simple rule, namely that if you are interested in population differences in cognitive ability, then you are––ipso facto––a “pseudoscientist”.

In other words, doing what RationalWiki is in the habit of doing (i.e., casually smearing anyone who is interested in population differences in cognitive ability as a “pseudoscientist”) is potentially unethical. After all, the way to combat racism is to point out that racism is morally wrong, not to deny the possibility of certain scientific discoveries.

  • 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 email at OpenPsych[edit]

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: Punisher (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

More dishonesty from Carl[edit]

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.

Proof Carl reviews his own OpenPsych paper submissions since he lists himself as a reviewer and author of a paper dated Nov. 2, 2018. Carl would later delete this, not realising there was a screenshot.

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: 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)
@Jsolinsky 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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[edit]

  • "Hundreds of academics oppose research fellow’s eugenics work on discredited ‘race sciences" [1]
  • "More than 200 academics sign open letter accusing Cambridge don of publishing 'racist pseudoscience" [2]
  • "Cambridge dons revolt over ‘racist’ fellow’s role" [3]
  • "Discredited race science’: Academics unite against ‘eugenicist’ given Cambridge fellowship" [4]

Another article:

Carl has written numerous articles for publications with links to the far-right. He is on the review team of Emil Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych and is the website’s most prolific contributor after Kirkegaard himself. Kirkegaard describes himself as a “self-taught” geneticist who has previously defended child rape, and appeared on the far-right webshow Reality Calls to discuss the “future of eugenics.”

Among Carl’s OpenPsych papers is one arguing that an increased Muslim population leads to more terrorism in the country. The paper was subsequently reviewed by Kirkegaard and self-described “race realist” John Fuerst. [5]

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

@Spud 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. (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Woodland 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)

Noah Carl sacked[edit]

ST EDMUND’S – website statement Statement from the Master regarding the outcome of the investigations into complaints about the appointment of Research Fellow – 30 April 2019

Summary St Edmund’s College has today announced the outcome of the investigations it launched into the appointment of the Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellow, Dr Noah Carl. The College launched two separate formal investigations following complaints made by its student body, the Combination Room, at the end of November last year. Following Dr Carl’s arrival in College matters emerged about some of his activities and connections linking him to far right extremists and the Combination Room questioned how he had come to be appointed by the College. The College’s formal investigations have overall upheld the majority of the Combination Room complaints. At a special meeting of the College’s Governing Body today, the Governing Body voted to adopt the findings and recommendations contained in the reports. The College has terminated Dr Carl’s appointment to the Research Fellowship.

Statement St Edmund’s convened two investigations into the complaints. One was led by Sir Patrick Elias, a retired Court of Appeal Judge. This external review concerned the recruitment process, to address concerns expressed in the complaint about the way in which the appointment of the Research Fellow had been handled by the College. The other investigation was led by Life Fellow, Professor Michael Herrtage, who chaired a Special Investigation Panel to review the complaints about certain of Dr Carl’s research activities and connections. The Combination Room complained that these demonstrated poor scholarship, promoted extreme right-wing views and incited racial and religious hatred. The Combination Room said that the appointment of a Fellow holding such views violated the dignity of members of the College.


The complaints considered by Special Investigation Panel chaired by Professor Herrtage related to the activities and connections of Dr Carl that had subsequently come to the College’s attention after his appointment. The panel substantially upheld these complaints. The panel found that Dr Carl had put a body of work into the public domain that did not comply with established criteria for research ethics and integrity. In any event, it considered that the poor scholarship of this problematic body of Dr Carl’s work, among other things, meant that it fell outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech.

Furthermore, the panel found that, in the course of pursuing this problematic work, Dr Carl had collaborated with a number of individuals who were known to hold extremist views. There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the College being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred, and bring the College into disrepute. In addition, the panel also noted that the way in which Dr Carl has conducted himself with regard to his publications and the ideas he has expressed have had a detrimental effect on the atmosphere within the College with feelings of hurt, betrayal, anger and disbelief that the College could be associated with such views.

Tobias (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughtcrime perp[edit]

There are grammar mistakes in this article such as misused commas; other articles are also filled with ungrammatical language, making it seem as though RationalWiki is written by vampire novel readers. And it is irrational for you to accuse Carl of being racist due to his publishing papers in pseudoscience journals. I'll be blocked for this thoughtcrime. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Go ahead and fix the grammar if you want but it's quite implausible that Carl is not a racialist since he's been in OpenPsych multiple times and the London Conference twice. Bongolian (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Juvenile, sophomoric article[edit]

Well, I had been under the mistaken impression that RationalWiki must be something like Wikipedia but focussing on science & reason, but having read this article it's clear it's just a joke. At least most Wikipedia articles have a go at being objective. Whereas this article reads like it was written by an angry 1st-year undergrad student, so sure of himself with his B and two Cs at A-level he doesn't even pretend to be impartial. The word 'sophomoric' sums it up (though technically that would at least be a 2nd-year student). If this sounds like abuse, it isn't - just stating facts here. D- (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh noes!! How ever will we function with our 42 citations DESTROYED by your arbitrary grading system!?!?! WOE IS US!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Noah Carl unsuccessfully tried to block this page from showing on for defamation but failed[edit]

Carl filed a defamation report back in 2019, lying about himself and this page, I recently found it:

The infringing URL is little more than an attack page, which exists primarily to disparage me. The page contains numerous false and defamatory claims about me, which are likely to cause serious harm to my reputation. The page therefore violates the Defamation Act 2013. For example, the page claims_ that I publish "racialism pseudoscience and Islamophobic papers"; that I am "Islamophobic and arguably far-right"; that I have "published racist pseudoscience"; and that I and another individual are "both right-wing Islamophobes". All these claims are false and defamatory. In addition, the page repeatedly smears me via guilt-by-association. For example, it claims_ that some of my papers have been "quoted with approval by far-right groups", that one of my papers "found its way onto many right-wing and far-right websites"; and that "The far-right Traditional Britain Group have made Facebook posts supporting [REDACTED] [REDACTED]". I am not a member of any far-right group.

Although he redacted his name from the report to try to conceal his identity, we know it was him with 100% certainty because the identical descriptions only appear on this article by a search e.g. "both right-wing Islamophobes" and "Islamophobic and arguably far-right", "found its way onto many right-wing and far-right websites" etc.

The report was unsuccessful and Carl's page has been on (like .com) and not deindexed by their search-engine. I find the report extremely dishonest - "both right-wing Islamophobes" is somehow defamatory? Carl openly identifies as a conservative (= right wing), furthermore, he published a bunch of controversial widely perceived as Islamophobic papers in OpenPsych.

This guy is another 'freedom of speech' warrior fraud. It's no surprise he tried redacting his name to try to hide the fact he is trying to censor articles that criticise him. He's clearly not pro-freedom of speech.2A03:E600:100:0:0:0:0:46 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this one?[edit]

The Wikipedia article and the Rational Wiki article are hostile, defamatory and full of false or highly distorted allegations taken from newspaper smear articles. These articles are not reliable as they are written by journalists who set out to attack a particular political party and present innocent things in as bad a light as they possibly can. The insulting allegations made by the Daily Mirror a Labour party paper (for instance about sex with animals) never had any real basis. A hypothetical discussion was taken out of context and wildly twisted. Yet this has been replicated over and over again becoming more and more garbled as the allegation proliferates on the internet. The motive of these journalists is not to give an accurate, fair or objective account of what happened but to distort, sensationalize and demonize. Such material is intended to sell newspapers, but is not suitable for a reference work. The claim that I am a "rightwing" activist

I don't think this was Carl's since the dates don't work and it's talking about "sex with animals"? But it could be someone with a page with connections to him.2A0B:F4C2:1:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)