> Hi, I work in academia and disagree with the author’s take.
There is a logical fallacy, and I don't recall its name, but it refers to rejecting an argument only because it does not confirm one's personal experience
> a few minutes of browsing scitwitter to debunk the idea that scientists don’t talk about their field online (even unprofessionally)
Perhaps these scientists' work is uncontroversial, or they are protected, or you are right and Scott is wrong. Spend some time with Slate Star Codex and the new blog, and you might become aware of counter examples which you would not become aware of by browsing Twitter
> none of us are safe - not the random grad student with a Twitter account making fun of bad science
From that I assumed that the sort of people being referred to are those who are debunking or criticising work by already established scientists. I'm speculating here but I would guess it hurts their chances because those who do the hiring don't want to risk taking on someone who might criticise their science in future.
With some searching I found an example of a grad student being doxxed and harassed for criticizing a powerful professor, but in philosophy, not science. I wonder what incident Scott refers to, if any
There is a logical fallacy, and I don't recall its name, but it refers to rejecting an argument only because it does not confirm one's personal experience
> a few minutes of browsing scitwitter to debunk the idea that scientists don’t talk about their field online (even unprofessionally)
Perhaps these scientists' work is uncontroversial, or they are protected, or you are right and Scott is wrong. Spend some time with Slate Star Codex and the new blog, and you might become aware of counter examples which you would not become aware of by browsing Twitter