re: #303 Naso Tang

There is a whole lot of speculation going on, and not much evidence to support a variety of conclusions. The conclusions are guesses and hunches…not much else. There are ways in which bizarro beliefs can be held by Phds — fringe beliefs, hobbies, etc — and these beliefs could be pursued on the side (looking for UFOs for example)— the beliefs would not necessarily interfere with conducting scientific research, writing up and publishing papers, and so on. Hence, it doesn’t follow that “Because individual X believes in kooky weirdo things, therefore they cannot conduct legitimate scientific research.” Again, as per my first question, one needs to establish precisely how certain beliefs are impeding/distorting/warping the research…and if you don’t establish the connection, then it’s just ad hominem attacks. Anyway, it also, though raises questions about the department (from which she received her Phd) — is this a “representative” sample? is she a fluke? (As you note, it would take detective work here.)