Ok, so I read some of the articles in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Some notes:
1) The logo is terrible.
2) The articles are terrible
3) Poorly written, poorly structured, imagined arguments, lazy scholarship.
4) And boring.
5) that is all.
1) The logo is terrible.
2) The articles are terrible
3) Poorly written, poorly structured, imagined arguments, lazy scholarship.
4) And boring.
5) that is all.
Take this one: Make up a term - 'Cognitive Creationism' - define it to mean something that at best, a tiny, largely ignored fringe think is roughly right, cite non-scholarly work + waffle + quote-mine = CONTROVERSIAL. My arse.
bit.ly/3gx0lJz
bit.ly/3gx0lJz
The only question is which of the race wienies wrote it, but wasn't brave enough to put their name to it.
The race wienie circlejerk is all in there. Place your bets.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
