• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And would have killed many, many more without lockdowns, masks and other precautions...as it was, it nearly overwhelmed the health care system...
That misrepresents what the linked article says though.
He argued against the lockdowns. It's interesting that
he's also an economist, because it's a perspective more
oriented towards evaluating alternatives. Sure, there
would'a been some additional death without lockdowns.
But there'd also be benefits from not halting classroom
education, not contracting the economy, & not preventing
recreating & socializing.
The net effect is what matters. I can see reasonable
arguments for many measures to prevent spread, while
avoiding lockdowns, which were a political more than
a scientific response (IMO).
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead' (msn.com)

I thought this was interesting, although I can't say whether his position is correct or not. Just curious what others might think about this.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a professor of medicine at a prestigious institution like Stanford is not some uneducated hillbilly who doesn't know what he's talking about.





Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia



As a result, Bhattacharya says he's been getting harassed, received death threats, and that he's facing a hostile work environment at his job.



Clerisy definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

He uses the term "clerisy" here, although the definition indicates that it's a synonym for "intelligentsia."





This may point up one of the reasons why there is confusion among the general public of mostly non-scientists. I'm not suggesting that Bhattacharya's characterization painting Fauci as the "pope of science" is correct here, but if nothing else, it appears that science doesn't have a full consensus. Of course, this is normal in academics overall. There are plenty of topics and subjects which have not had full, absolute 100% consensus within the academic community, but they're usually protected by principles of academic freedom and have the freedom to publish and debate.







Is academic freedom dead? Does an institution of higher learning have an obligation to promote and protect academic freedom?

In general, employers have an obligation to protect workers from a hostile work environment, so at the very least, Stanford may have dropped the ball on that issue. Should they be penalized or punished for doing so?

What about his view of a "scientific clerisy" which "declares from on high what is true and what is not true"?


We have nut jobs in academia, just like elsewhere...
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Academic freedom is a tricky thing. To be a member
in good standing of the tribe, is to have more slack.
Freedom in any situation is like that. It's always going to be a degree relative to the responsibilities being asked in return for it. Freedom was never the right to do or say whatever we want in any situation. It has always been contained within a set of parameters. And in the case of academia there are many set parameters, both by necessity, and by the majority's desire.

But keep in mind that it's not academia's job to debate and determine scientific peer review. That's done among scientists and is still within the realm of science. Academia's job is to teach the prevailing scientific consensus, whatever that is. Which this particular professor apparently took issue with. But it's not his job as a college professor to be taking issue with the current scientific consensus. He should be doing that in the scientific journals, not in the classroom. And I suspect that is why he got so much push-back over it. As he should.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We have nut jobs in academia, just like elsewhere...
Is this guy a nut?
Reading the article, that's not clear to me.

BTW, China's far stricter approach to lockdowns
appears to be a worse solution than our approach.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
That misrepresents what the linked article says though.
He argued against the lockdowns. It's interesting that
he's also an economist, because it's a perspective more
oriented towards evaluating alternatives. Sure, there
would'a been some additional death without lockdowns.
But there'd also be benefits from not halting classroom
education, not contracting the economy, & not preventing
recreating & socializing.
The net effect is what matters. I can see reasonable
arguments for many measures to prevent spread, while
avoiding lockdowns, which were a political more than
a scientific response (IMO).
I wasn't trying to represent what the article said, I was offering the opinion that his models might not have given enough weight some factors and too much to others.

Yes, such differences of opinion should be allowed in academia, as well as in the public sphere of policy-making. Just because he's "also an economist" gives me no greater concern for his opinion and findings, as my experience has been that put 10 economists in a room and you'll get at least 13 different opinions of the question...and ask them again a year later, and they'll all deny that their answers were wrong, even though they were.

And I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to learn that public policy might be more political than science-based!

Let me go alert the media!:D
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead' (msn.com)

I thought this was interesting, although I can't say whether his position is correct or not. Just curious what others might think about this.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that a professor of medicine at a prestigious institution like Stanford is not some uneducated hillbilly who doesn't know what he's talking about.





Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia



As a result, Bhattacharya says he's been getting harassed, received death threats, and that he's facing a hostile work environment at his job.



Clerisy definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

He uses the term "clerisy" here, although the definition indicates that it's a synonym for "intelligentsia."





This may point up one of the reasons why there is confusion among the general public of mostly non-scientists. I'm not suggesting that Bhattacharya's characterization painting Fauci as the "pope of science" is correct here, but if nothing else, it appears that science doesn't have a full consensus. Of course, this is normal in academics overall. There are plenty of topics and subjects which have not had full, absolute 100% consensus within the academic community, but they're usually protected by principles of academic freedom and have the freedom to publish and debate.







Is academic freedom dead? Does an institution of higher learning have an obligation to promote and protect academic freedom?

In general, employers have an obligation to protect workers from a hostile work environment, so at the very least, Stanford may have dropped the ball on that issue. Should they be penalized or punished for doing so?

What about his view of a "scientific clerisy" which "declares from on high what is true and what is not true"?
So... a tenured professor publicly declares his support for unscientific ideas that are killing people and he didn't lose his position or face any official sanction?

Sounds like academic freedom is working just fine.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So... a tenured professor publicly declares his support for unscientific ideas that are killing people and he didn't lose his position or face any official sanction?

Sounds like academic freedom is working just fine.
Which idea is unscientific & why?
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
Climate change deniers, science deniers, COVID deniers, they are essentially the same. They peddle information that is dangerously outside scientific consensus and then cry foul when someone inevitably complains about it. It's irresponsible, and it's political.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Climate change deniers, science deniers, COVID deniers, they are essentially the same. They peddle information that is dangerously outside scientific consensus and then cry foul when someone inevitably complains about it.
Is Bhattacharya one of those?
(I read the article, but skipped the video.)
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Why suspect that?
Person experience, because I earned a Ph.D., ("Piled higher and Deeper") and worked doing research and teaching in academia. Results, no matter by whom, are often interesting but turn out on closer examination to weak in definition of and data collected for variables. Economic models especially, but also many other kinds, only function because a great many assumptions are made that cannot in fact be measured...or are simply beyond the ability of a small research establishment to underwrite. My faculty in grad school was impressed with my ability to point out the weaknesses in many studies, and I was frequently called upon by fellow faculty once employed to savage their early drafts so they'd be more likely to be accepted for publication.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Person experience, because I earned a Ph.D., ("Piled higher and Deeper") and worked doing research and teaching in academia. Results, no matter by whom, are often interesting but turn out on closer examination to weak in definition of and data collected for variables. Economic models especially, but also many other kinds, only function because a great many assumptions are made that cannot in fact be measured...or are simply beyond the ability of a small research establishment to underwrite. My faculty in grad school was impressed with my ability to point out the weaknesses in many studies, and I was frequently called upon by fellow faculty once employed to savage their early drafts so they'd be more likely to be accepted for publication.
I'm impressed with your letters, but not with
claiming them as authority for an unsupported
generalization that impugns Mr B (of the OP).
What has he specifically claimed that your
analysis debunks?
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
We have nut jobs in academia, just like elsewhere...

I can understand that, but this is Stanford where this guy was working as a professor of medicine. As I said in my OP, someone who can achieve that position is obviously not some uneducated hillbilly from the sticks.

To those of us among the Great Unwashed, how are we to tell the difference between the nut jobs in Academia versus the supposedly sane ones? (And it's not just one against a thousand; apparently this open letter was signed by thousands of scientists.)

Either academia has been lax in granting advanced degrees to thousands of idiots and nut jobs, or there might be some other explanation for this.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I'm impressed with your letters, but not with
claiming them as authority for an unsupported
generalization related to Mr B (of the OP).
What has he specifically claimed that your
analysis debunks?
You asked for the source of my doubting him; I gave it to you. I doubt EVERY researcher. You want to prove that he's right? Go ahead. But I have no interest in digging into his theory and models, nor those of others.

You know, just because an academic isn't fitting into the academic mainstream doesn't mean he's wrong. But it also doesn't mean that he's right, which is what it seems you're trying to say.

Anyway, sorry to waste your time; I'm not going further with this particular thread.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You asked for the source of my doubting him; I gave it to you.
I'd hoped that you had some of Mr B's
claims that you could show were wrong.
You didn't criticize him or his views at all.
But now I know you have a PhD.
There's that.
I doubt EVERY researcher. You want to prove that he's right? Go ahead. But I have no interest in digging into his theory and models, nor those of others.
Proof that he's right doesn't interest me.
But support for claims that he's wrong do.
You know, just because an academic isn't fitting into the academic mainstream doesn't mean he's wrong. But it also doesn't mean that he's right, which is what it seems you're trying to say.
What I'm trying (& failing) to say is that I've yet
to see any of his critics here deal directly with
specific claims he's made.
So far, it's been assigning him to the tribe of
anti-vax types, & decrying their idiocy.
Anyway, sorry to waste your time; I'm not going further with this particular thread.
I don't blame you. (Real life now calls to me also.)
It seems that no one is interested in ferreting out
his actual views, & addressing them.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And would have killed many, many more without lockdowns, masks and other precautions...as it was, it nearly overwhelmed the health care system...
Yes, and some medical experts believe that it is likely that an additional 200,000 or more deaths from covid likely happened because of the previous administration's mishandling of the problem and the right-wing media's questioning the effectiveness of the vaccines.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Science does not have it own money. Science is beholden to Government, Business and Private donations for the money and resources needed to do science. Go to any major science publication, and ask them how many scientists, who have publish in their journal, use their own money to buy resources? The answer will be close to zero. What that means is the money people, who fund science have a lot say as to what can be done, and what will not be done or said.

If anyone is able to get hooked into one of these large money streams, publishing is almost automatic. The preponderance of evidence can bought and paid for by these money givers by making this automatic. They have a say into how they wish to control the data narrative. If you work for a tobacco company, as a scientist, you will still do good science, but it has a trajectory with the needs of the company, that pays your salary and who owns your lab. University work the same way; middle men in the money stream.

COVID was Big bucks, with a capital "big". To get some of these big bucks for science, you had to play ball with the CDC; Bureaucratic state, who had all this money to burn. The gravy train needed to stay on a given track for this free ride to perpetuate. This is why anything that could be seen as a permanent or cheap solution was taboo, since cheap or permanent would mean less need to justify gravy train waste.

During COVID, if you treated people as adults and offered health guidelines, but allowed things to get back to normal; Florida's schools and business, there would be less need for Big Government Money. That money will be more needed by the states who created all type of problems for their citizens. Not able to work or not able to go to school means you need to be supported. It is strange reward system but this is how Washington works; waste comes first.

Those who were trying to be truthful and efficient, will be frowned upon, since they risk derailing the gravy train. Fauci was given an open check and to get resources for your university, you needed to follow his lead, which was also follow the Lead of those in power.

The way I see it was, Trump had the economy humming just before COVID hit. The Democrats, who had just failed their coup; Russian Collusion was debunked, needed to another way to undermine Trump before 2020. The opportunity came to ruin his booming economy. This would help them in 2020. They went into Big Bother mode, due to COVID, shutting down half the country, in Democrats run states. This justified the larger gravity train. This train also included resources for science, which had to toe the "need" line, to get on the train.

The consensus of science, behind climate change is another example of a gravy train. With enough money and control over who gets the money; protest all alternate views, any emperors new clothes; idea, will look shiny with sparkles.

What we are now learning now is how Universities and science sold its soul for the CDC resources. This happened in universities, businesses and government agencies, which tell you the power of money holders in science. The pendulum is starting to swing from Big Brother, back to freedom of speech. This may not be in the best interests of all those who over indulged in gravy.

Were the Dems and their fear of Trump powerful enough to lockdown Australia?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Freedom in any situation is like that. It's always going to be a degree relative to the responsibilities being asked in return for it. Freedom was never the right to do or say whatever we want in any situation. It has always been contained within a set of parameters. And in the case of academia there are many set parameters, both by necessity, and by the majority's desire.

But keep in mind that it's not academia's job to debate and determine scientific peer review. That's done among scientists and is still within the realm of science. Academia's job is to teach the prevailing scientific consensus, whatever that is. Which this particular professor apparently took issue with. But it's not his job as a college professor to be taking issue with the current scientific consensus. He should be doing that in the scientific journals, not in the classroom. And I suspect that is why he got so much push-back over it. As he should.

Isn't science a part of academia?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Isn't science a part of academia?
I don't see why it would be.

I know colleges like to hire professors that are active in their field, as a promotional tool to get more students. But it ends up putting that professor in a position of wearing two different hats. And in this case I think the professor in question got his hats a bit confused. Teaching science is not doing science. And doing science is not teaching it. The "academy" is about teaching, not doing. His job was to teach the prevailing scientific theories in the classroom, not promoting or debating his own. And he should have understood this.

On the other hand, if his academic cohorts are complaining because of some objection he posed in a scientific journal to mainstream scientific thought they are the ones that should have known better, as they hired the man for exactly that qualification.
 
Last edited:
Top