Eliezer kudos for you to touch such a hot iron! There is at least one professor in the US who lost his tenure because of his contrarian views in regard to 911.
IIRC, I think that case was about a lot more than just his contrarian 9/11 views, although I suppose they were instrumental in shining a spotlight on him bright enough to reveal all the other ways in which he was a fraud.
ETA: Okay, found his name: Ward Churchill. Intro matches my summary:
In January 2005, Churchill’s work attracted publicity, with the widespread circulation of a 2001 essay, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. In the essay, he claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. policy, and referred to the “technocratic corps” working in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”.
In March 2005 the University of Colorado began investigating allegations that Churchill had engaged in research misconduct; it reported in June 2006 that he had done so. Churchill was fired on July 24, 2007, leading to a claim from some scholars that he was fired over the ideas he expressed.
So he was officially fired for research misconduct, but that misconduct would probably have gone unnoticed if not for his look-at-me-I’m-a-contrarian spiel.
Note: If you have a cushy job predicated on fraudulent work you’ve done in the past, and ethics don’t trouble you, try to keep a low profile, moron.
Jones’ interests also extend to archaeometry, solar energy, and, like many professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon. For example, he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith’s belief that Jesus Christ visited America.
...
On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by about 60 people. Pointing to the speed and symmetry of the collapses, the characteristics of dust jets, eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings, partially vaporized beams, molten metal in the basements which was still red hot weeks after the event, and the notion that no modern high rise had ever collapsed from fire, Jones suggested that the evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors explosive demolition, possibly by the use of thermite or nanothermite.
You are free to look for any flaws regarding his arguments in the papers he published in the peer reviewed journal of 911 studies.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
They might as well have named it the journal of 911 conspiracy rationalizations, since every paper (I clicked on) aims to cast doubts on the official explanation. ”...and therefore the US government is hiding something” seems to be their pre-written conclusion.
Getting associated with a low prestige topic can lower someone’s status even if they are on the side that isn’t stupid. (See OvercomingBias.)
If picking up a hot iron can be considered to be advocating a stigmatised contrarian position then even just mentioning the topic without advocating for it could perhaps be considered ‘touching the hot iron rather than picking it up’. (I think Eliezer made this up on the spot by expanding on the metaphor that you provided.)
If this is the case, yes I don’t think that he picked it up. He just touched it in a clever way making people think about it. I suppose he is in the know but doesn’t want to be open about it and it’s the right thing to do in his position, living in the US. Btw, AFAIK this metaphor is widely used, no?
Eliezer kudos for you to touch such a hot iron! There is at least one professor in the US who lost his tenure because of his contrarian views in regard to 911.
IIRC, I think that case was about a lot more than just his contrarian 9/11 views, although I suppose they were instrumental in shining a spotlight on him bright enough to reveal all the other ways in which he was a fraud.
ETA: Okay, found his name: Ward Churchill. Intro matches my summary:
So he was officially fired for research misconduct, but that misconduct would probably have gone unnoticed if not for his look-at-me-I’m-a-contrarian spiel.
Note: If you have a cushy job predicated on fraudulent work you’ve done in the past, and ethics don’t trouble you, try to keep a low profile, moron.
No. There is physics professor Steven Jones, he was forced into retirement for his view on 9/11.
Wikipedia entry.
...
Amazing. These are identical thought processes.
You are free to look for any flaws regarding his arguments in the papers he published in the peer reviewed journal of 911 studies. http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Peer review isn’t magic trust dust. Looking at their website, I don’t see any details on their review process or why I should trust them.
They might as well have named it the journal of 911 conspiracy rationalizations, since every paper (I clicked on) aims to cast doubts on the official explanation. ”...and therefore the US government is hiding something” seems to be their pre-written conclusion.
I hope you’re congratulating me for touching the hot iron rather than picking it up, metaphorically speaking?
I don’t get the difference, sorry I’m not a native english speaker. I googled “hot iron” but didn’t find information to clarify it.
Getting associated with a low prestige topic can lower someone’s status even if they are on the side that isn’t stupid. (See OvercomingBias.)
If picking up a hot iron can be considered to be advocating a stigmatised contrarian position then even just mentioning the topic without advocating for it could perhaps be considered ‘touching the hot iron rather than picking it up’. (I think Eliezer made this up on the spot by expanding on the metaphor that you provided.)
Correct.
If this is the case, yes I don’t think that he picked it up. He just touched it in a clever way making people think about it. I suppose he is in the know but doesn’t want to be open about it and it’s the right thing to do in his position, living in the US. Btw, AFAIK this metaphor is widely used, no?
Don’t know. I don’t think I have heard it before but it sounds like the kind of thing that is a popular metaphor.
It seems that I unknowingly got influenced by my german background where this metaphor is quite common.