PZ Myers writes:
The interesting thing, though, is that picking Easterbrook tells us something about the social circles in which Slate management seems to circulate—and that is that they are disjunct from the social circles that include competent scientists and science writers.
Having some ideas of those circles, I can assure you that very few social networks in political journalism are heavily populated by scientists. And while that may be basically predictable, it’s similarly worrying that the massive policy community — which exists, like the journalistic community, in DC — don’t much penetrate these groups either. I’m rather convinced that the generally poor quality of substantive commentary across the board comes from peer groups with a lot of opinions but very little expertise. Being clever, in both work and relaxation, brings greater rewards than being data-heavy. That makes for both interesting conversations and interesting writing, but it doesn’t do a whole lot for actual rightness.
