The desperate reaction continues.
The Daily Mail did a piece exposing major holes in Connie St Louis’s CV, and Dawkins is claiming that that means Tim Hunt has been “the victim of an injustice.” Of course it doesn’t mean that. If St Louis were the sole source for the story of what Tim Hunt said, then the Mail piece would throw everything in doubt – but she’s not, so it doesn’t.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins 8 hours ago
Yes, it’s the Daily Mail, but it’s the most thorough account I’ve seen of the Tim Hunt affair. Detailed & convincing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html …Devastating dissection of the credentials of the only journalist still denying Tim Hunt’s “Now seriously . . .” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-
Admittedly it’s the Mail. But interesting dissection of the journalistic credentials of Tim Hunt’s main accuser. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html …
Three tweets in a row, all saying the same thing. Dude’s excited.
8 hours ago
Please, no reverse witch hunt against Tim Hunt’s accusers. But it’d be nice if UCL reinstated him & the affair closed http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html …
No, it wouldn’t. It would not be nice if UCL did that. The provost and president of UCL explained why yesterday. He explained it carefully, with sympathy for Tim Hunt and Mary Collins and respect for both of them, while still saying that “reversing that decision would send entirely the wrong signal.” Dawkins would say the Mail story changes that – but he would be wrong, because St Louis is not the only source.
Dawkins concludes that sequence with a truly infuriating claim.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins 8 hours ago
I am a social justice warrior: hate misogyny, all forms of bigotry & injustice. Tim Hunt’s silly joke made him the victim of an injustice.
No. No he’s not and no he doesn’t. He wants to have it both ways, and he can’t. He wants to claim to hate misogyny while still flying into rages when women push back against sexism and misogyny. He can’t do both. It’s not honest and it doesn’t work.
Note that I’m not defending Connie St Louis.
I saw that tweet too. I also clicked to see the replies and was amused at all of the people trying to gently explain that RD must not understand what SJW means, and that it is a bad thing, and that no, no he isn’t!
The Daily Mail did a piece exposing major holes in Connie St Louis’s CV, and Dawkins is claiming that that means Tim Hunt has been “the victim of an injustice.”
In the same way that finding that a biologist has falsified results proves that jesus is god, right?
Dawkins isn’t very good at the forward-backward thinking flip-things-around-and-look-at-both-sides thing, is he? Which is weird because I’d say that’s the main requirement for being a philosopher (and scientists are a sub-branch of philosophers)
Dawkins is a social justice warrior in the same way that I am the Grand Marshal of the Royal Swiss Lighthouse Service.
“I’m a social justice warrior. That means I use social justice issues as a cudgel against the religious, while asserting that it’s totally okay for white atheist men to actively work against those issues.” – Dawkins translated
Also, how long now before Dawkins types the words, “Yes, it’s from A Voice For Men, but…”?
So let me get this straight…
A scientist has chosen cherry-pick sources of data going into their decision making because of the supplemental data source that calls the CV into question (which does not demonstrate that even that data is wrong). They then ignore the other investigators reporting on this aspect of reality.
This is exactly why I found Dawkins full of shit with his “philosophical questions”. If he really had good intentions he would not have rejected data that contradicted his views (the experiences and opinions of other people).
It just seems to me like Dawkins is getting more and more desperate. I wonder why he is spending so much time on this issue. I would understand it if Tim Hunt had lost his job or something like that