I can't judge whether this is a good paper or not, and I think it's really cool that someone with only a bachelors degree (like myself) can get a paper published without first doing a PhD.
However, the anti-"woke" part of this article seems so odd to me. Given all the wacky "science" from Nazi scientists that "research" differences between races leading to genocide, it seems completely logical to me that you jump through several hoops and make sure your research is really sound before you publish a paper that explores exactly that topic.
I don't understand your comment -- are you implying the holocaust didn't happen or wasn't genocide? I want to steelman your argument but it's pretty hard.
Your other point is that you wonder whether a paper review is going to protect against mass killing. I'd say yes, that's quite possible. Anyone can post almost anything they want on any kind of blog or 4chan sub or reddit sub, and that's fine. But scientific papers are what people quote as "truth", and publishers have some responsibility in making sure that what they publish is based in evidence. This is especially true when it concerns topics that have, historically, led to genocide.
Comments
I can't judge whether this is a good paper or not, and I think it's really cool that someone with only a bachelors degree (like myself) can get a paper published without first doing a PhD.
However, the anti-"woke" part of this article seems so odd to me. Given all the wacky "science" from Nazi scientists that "research" differences between races leading to genocide, it seems completely logical to me that you jump through several hoops and make sure your research is really sound before you publish a paper that explores exactly that topic.
science research lead to genocide? why did you make that up? why do imagine some paper review is the bulwark against mass killing?
I don't understand your comment -- are you implying the holocaust didn't happen or wasn't genocide? I want to steelman your argument but it's pretty hard.
Your other point is that you wonder whether a paper review is going to protect against mass killing. I'd say yes, that's quite possible. Anyone can post almost anything they want on any kind of blog or 4chan sub or reddit sub, and that's fine. But scientific papers are what people quote as "truth", and publishers have some responsibility in making sure that what they publish is based in evidence. This is especially true when it concerns topics that have, historically, led to genocide.