
Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’ - jeffreyrogers
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Here-Comes-The-Journal-of/245068
======
542458
I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of
not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old
eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly
parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing,
but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain
merit because they’re controversial, they have merit despite or irrespective
of that fact.

It’s also worth noting that several large and reputable publications have
already set up subcommittees dedicated to handling controversial ideas. So the
idea of a venue for controversial ideas isn’t really all that novel.

And while I’ve seen pubs get rejected from one venue or another for being
controversial, I’ve never heard of a solid scientific pub getting blackballed
from everything. Anything with even the slightest bit of rigour can almost
certainly find a venue somewhere - there are a lot of second and third tier
publications out there already without a lot to lose.

~~~
rmtech
> journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago

Why were such ideas rejected? Is there a scientific case for rejecting them?

Science is an ongoing process, there is no central authority to reject sinful
ideas which is what your comment indicates that you would like, which
underlines the need for such a journal.

~~~
manicdee
There's no scientific case supporting eugenics. Eugenics is not a scientific
idea.

~~~
rmtech
> Eugenics is not a scientific idea.

can you give the definition of eugenics that you're using?

~~~
manicdee
Eugenics is basically applying selective breeding or even genetic engineering
to humans in order to grow towards a “better” human population. This uses
scientific concepts such as genetics to implement a political or ideological
goal.

Eugenics is not science whichever way you carve it up.

------
mixedmath
> One unusual feature of the journal will be giving authors the option to use
> a pseudonym (though the journal’s editors say they hope most will feel
> comfortable using their real names). The thought is that such a policy would
> allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper, and perhaps to
> claim it later when he or she is on firmer career footing. Or maybe just to
> put it out there, and never claim it at all.

That seems like an interesting, but perhaps ultimately bad idea. I'm uncertain
--- it's certainly interesting.

I see that a founder is Peter Singer, who has sometimes in the past suggested
that it may be better for a family (financially and happiness-wise) to kill a
disabled child and have another [1]. He considers this from an ethical
perspective.

I can imagine it being frustrating to want to consider hard, taboo ethical
quandaries from a neutral standpoint.

[1]: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-
and/24...](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/242543)

~~~
yters
What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the
writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify
a probable author.

~~~
nzjrs
Probbable is defence enough I'd say.

~~~
yters
What's the point of a pseudonym, then?

------
rhspeer
This is necessary.

Yes there will be ideas discussed at the quality of eugenics.

However, there may also be ideas like the earth orbiting the sun.

Example topics that should cause too much controversy for open discussion are:
* The Palestinian apartheid

* How Carolyn Bryand Donham fits into the #metoo movement

* Supply side economics is the root cause of Facism

* How long should a peaceful protests be ignored before it can morally be violent?

* The United States was violently founded on "Taxation without representation". The same situation is happening now with gerrymandering and outdated Senate rules.

* Cloning is going to happen, and it is going to get weird

* AI is going to happen, and it may be scary

I am NOT opening these ideas up for discussion. What I am saying is that all
these are worthy of open, thoughtful discussion. Sometimes to say they are not
a thing, sometimes to change perceptions. Mostly they are going to make a lot
of folks angry.

~~~
tptacek
Almost none of these bullets describe ideas that are going to be discussed in
this journal. They're just random inflammatory political topics.

~~~
rhspeer
Correct, they are exactly random inflammatory topics.

So what examples would you suggest?

The examples from the post were: * Euthanizing disabled babies * The positive
side of colonization * Choosing ones race like one chooses ones own gender
identity

Those also seem to have a political bent.

Also to be clear not advocating for or against any of these ideas, some of
them make me VERY uncomfortable even thinking about.

------
motohagiography
The Economist has been doing anonymous articles for about 100 years, I think
the only difference is they are not controversial.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Not the same thing.

Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell
article by the editor in chief, are _not bylined_.

The reason being that the newspaper wants to speak with one voice.

In addition, and being certified and proud opinion journalism, I wouldn't
exactly call TE uncontroversial.

Not having a byline is very fundamentally different than writing under
pseudonym.

~~~
motohagiography
The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single
voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous,
or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference.

How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader
has recourse to?

Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.

~~~
CaptainZapp
_How would you describe the difference as fundamental?_

I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from
third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest,
political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published
by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single
publication.

 _Is it of who a reader has recourse to?_

The editors of The Economist are not unknown entities. Each section has its
editors known by the paper, the only thing being that their articles are not
bylined.

The journalists may not be known to you, but they're absolutely not anonymous
and you have every recourse towards the paper and by extension towards the
responsible editor.

As a matter of fact they're quite good in printing corrections or publishing
letters to the editor by an offended party.

 _Separately, TE isn 't exactly provocative or brave._

Ahem, I introduce evidence #1 [1]

In a cover story they made a forceful argument for Gay marriage.

That was in 1996.

I, for one, wouldn't exactly call that a mainstream opinion in January 1996.

As a matter of fact this is pretty much the definition for provocative and
brave.

[1]
[https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=251538...](https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=2515389)

~~~
motohagiography
22 years ago, TE was brave, because at that time transgression against middle
class values was a big part of the elite they represented. The cultural
obligation for the privileged to voice principled dissent is no longer a
thing. We buried it with Christopher Hitchens.

TE is a group of editors who assign to a large pool of contributors, many of
whom are freelancers. Not unlike the controversy journal, which will also
publish third party material without direct individual attribution.

I would argue the controversy journal allowing pseudonyms for writers is
exactly the same as non-bylined articles.

Of the values of the last decade that are now held above public criticism, I
doubt TE has issued a compelling challenge to any of them, discretion being
the better part of valour these days.

------
asianthrowaway
I fully support this idea, but I wonder if it will impair the ability to
collaborate academically.

~~~
msla
> I fully support this idea, but I wonder if it will impair the ability to
> collaborate academically.

We've solved that idea a few times on a technical level, most notably using
public-key encryption.

------
new_guy
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437066](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437066)

------
alllivesmatter2
[]

~~~
sctb
Could you please stop creating throwaways to break the guidelines with? We'll
ban the main account if you keep on.

------
rgrieselhuber
As soon as I saw Peter Singer, I knew what kind of controversial ideas they
would be. Check out the writings of Bertrand Russell for more of the same.

It's likely to be the old, regurgitated fantasies from the British Empire and
early 20th century eugenicists.

~~~
opwieurposiu
I think your comment wonderfully demonstrates the utility of publishing under
a pseudonym. Rather then confront the actual merits and problems with this or
that specific argument, a straw man is contructed and immediately doused with
ad hominem.

If the writer is anonymous, fallacious and time wasting ad hominem reasoning
is prevented.

~~~
monk22
yah conflating Singer's ideas with imperialism and eugenics is just silly.
Arguing about the person-hood of disabled babies is not the same as killing
babies of other races because of some pseudo-science white supremacy bullshit

~~~
rgrieselhuber
If you don’t see the similarity, I don’t know what to tell you. The thing they
have in common is arguing against personhood.

