Engineering prof. Also teaches about "Why People Believe Weird Things". Interested in how and why people disagree over facts and values. Heavy metal enthusiast.

Joined April 2018
1,775 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
Replying to @Metal_Crow
Any serious scientist wants to know what is true. We may fumble in our attempts to find out, but our craft is always in the service of knowing what *is* and from there can flow all the discussions of what humans should do. The arrows do not go the other way.
4
3
50
11,664
Carney's point is one I would have favored maybe twenty years ago. Today, I absolutely prefer the more 'melty' approach that favors integration and seeks to emphasize key shared values over creating little patchwork islands. Let culture be about food, music and traditions - but let's actually defend some set of values as the better ones, including the very values that liberals have fought for over the years.
Carney: Canada is a mosaic, not a melting pot. And this is the distinction that matters. Because a mosaic doesn't dissolve or blend its pieces. Each is stitched to each and all the pieces hold all. And the beauty is in the arrangement, not in the blending.
4
117
Josh Schwartz retweeted
Take Steven Spielberg's name off Disclosure Day and slap M Night Shyamalan's name on it and its a 12% Rotten on Rotten Tomatoes. Guaranteed.
141
355
4,575
2,237,888
That was a lot of grinding, Elon, to unlock the last trophy on your Playstation but good work I guess.
3
46
Intensive study tells us that, shockingly, standardized testing does what it was designed to do and has always done.
Columbia University has reinstated standardized testing for admissions — the last Ivy League school to do it. “Through a multi-year faculty review, it was determined that test scores, among other factors, were a useful indicator of potential student success.”
5
214
Are all people "created equal?" I feel like how people interpret this idea is really interesting. I didn't realize there are people who take that almost literally - to me it always sounded like it was about a very limited kind of message, like saying "nobody is above the law."
9
8
338
It just seems self-evidently NOT true in any literal way. Is that somehow shocking? Maybe to blank slaters? nytimes.com/2026/06/11/opini…
1
2
98
You really can't complain about barbarism and then set houses on fire.
🚨NEW: An Imam's home was "fire-bombed" in the early hours of this morning in Bolton, England, as widespread unrest continues over attempted beheading by Sudanese migrant Hadi Alodid [@itvnews]
2
2
122
Social media allows people to "know" things - but it prioritizes the sensational over the statistical. Crime can be down, but you can show them actual crimes and make them think crimes are up. You can create serious distortions of reality armed with nothing but actual truths.
Forgive me while I run through a thought process. After what happened in Belfast, the emerging progressive argument seems to be that people are angry because social media allowed too many people to see the video. In other words, people would not be angry if they did not know. And that is exactly the point. Without full knowledge and information, people are far easier to control. Net Zero becomes “necessary” because no one sees the cost. Climate change becomes unquestionable because the BBC says so. People might wonder why their own street looks different, but without social media they would never know that everyone else’s street looks different too. What I take from this is simple, censorship of information is every bit as important as censorship of speech. Because if people cannot compare notes, they cannot form conclusions. And if they cannot form conclusions, they cannot resist. This is not a moral stance they have taken. It is a political one. Those who believe their worldview is the only acceptable worldview will always end up justifying oppression, because they convince themselves they are doing it for your own good. The danger of the internet was never simply that it allowed people to speak. It was that it allowed people to know. And once the public knows too much, those who want control will conclude that knowledge itself is dangerous. That is why the fight for free speech is also a fight for free information. The days of the internet providing unfettered knowledge may be coming to an end. Certainly, if the UN Global Digital Compact, the Pact for the Future, and the wider “information integrity” agenda are rolled out through governments, regulators and quangos, the internet we knew will not survive. Hang on to your freedoms for dear life. They may be about to come to an end. This is why I wrote A War to Win Back Your World. Because the battle now is not only over speech. It is over knowledge, information, and who gets to decide what the public is allowed to understand. so I think you should pre order it and know what I know (shameless plug, soz) link in thread below
51
Genuinely surprised that I could be so surprised by a trailer... I'd never imagined this scenario looking real, but there it is: imagine being swallowed by a whale. youtube.com/watch?v=67ho3OxC…
2
3
148
Josh Schwartz retweeted
The role of rationality in figuring out what is true is absolutely central, and it is something the Founders and Enlightenment thinkers understood well. One of the ingenious compromises they came up with for dealing with beliefs that exist outside rational examination appears in two of the most brilliant parts of the First Amendment: the Free Exercise Clause, which says you can believe whatever non-falsifiable doctrine you wish, paired with the Establishment Clause, which says you may not mandate belief in your non-falsifiable system for everyone else. But what do we do in a situation where so much of what we call ideology has essentially taken the place of religion, and too many of us—especially in academia, but also outside it—hold non-falsifiable beliefs and wish to impose them on reality? There is no clear way to distinguish those rigid beliefs from any others, because they do not call themselves religion or faith. I know people have proposed something like an Establishment Clause for ideology, but I don’t see how that could possibly work in practice. All future debates would just turn into each side trying to prove that the other guy’s belief system, but not their own, is religion-like ideology. Naturally, their own view would simply be “truth.” I’ve been puzzling over this a lot lately. Truth-seeking simply cannot work in an environment where too many people are afraid to play devil’s advocate, engage in thought experimentation, and take seriously the possibility that they might be wrong on the most important issues. Such an environment simply becomes a dogma factory, where people are motivated to rationalize whatever their tribe wishes to be true.
This unqualified bore says his secondhand opinions are “not up for debate.” Yes they are. At a university all opinions are up for debate. If you cannot defend your opinions rationally, either they are indefensible or you are too stupid to defend them. In either case you have no right to force them on students who have expressed their wish to attend a lecture by doing so. thetimes.com/uk/education/ar…
17
46
258
19,369
"Word salad" is one of my go-to critiques of academic writing, and I sit on a curricular council, so this feels like it could have been about me.
A @HofstraU professor is facing a disciplinary hearing after calling a colleague’s course proposal “word salad” during a faculty meeting on curriculum changes. What started as academic discussion among faculty has now become a harassment probe.
4
187
Josh Schwartz retweeted
Chrétien: When you look at the polls, Canadians have never been more united. Thank you to Donald Trump for that. I should propose him for the Order of Canada, but I cannot succeed. Do you know why? Rosie: He's not Canadian? Chrétien: Because we don't give it to a person who has a criminal record.
261
1,789
8,492
311,467
Josh Schwartz retweeted
The Vanderbilt Report relies far too heavily on anecdote and broad generalizations, unlike my own critique of academia in which I use autoethnography to interrogate the neoliberal subordination of higher education to the imperatives of racial capitalism.
10
55
525
38,138
Josh Schwartz retweeted
What's amazing to me is that, 10 years apart, there are the exact same clouds in the exact same positions. DC truly is a magical place
1,715
12,261
144,091
3,442,036
Josh Schwartz retweeted
Jun 6
@grok is it true that the Trump administration's DOGE workforce reductions cut 1,377 positions from USDA-APHIS — the agency preventing screwworm entry — prior to the first confirmed U.S. case in 60 years in Texas? Please answer factually and without editorializing
3
13
67
3,849
Josh Schwartz retweeted
Because the people who want to dismantle Israel want to establish a friendly liberal democracy. The first Arab democracy in history, in the fact, and the first to award its Jewish minority equality. Give me a break.
To claim that dismantling a state, a governing structure, means murdering the people who live there is beyond absurd. Apartheid South Africa was dismantled. The white people there were not mass-murdered. The state simply became a state for all its citizens, with equal rights.
85
177
2,032
77,615
Damn. He was fantastic onscreen.
Buffy and Ted Lasso star Anthony Head dies at 72 bbc.in/43MoUtg
2
3
220
Josh Schwartz retweeted
Here’s why standardized tests are making a comeback at elite universities ⬇️
9
15
135
8,782
Josh Schwartz retweeted
NEW: a report from Vanderbilt and WashU just dropped, taking on the "state of scholarship in the humanities and social sciences," a big topic among critics of higher ed. Read along w/ me 🧵
66
299
1,182
622,628
Josh Schwartz retweeted
I am a Zionist. Many people out there don’t seem to understand what a Zionist is - and what it isn’t - so here you go. I believe in the existence of a Jewish home land, Israel, in the land of Judea, where it currently is. As a Zionist, I do not automatically agree with or support everything the country does, nor do I automatically agree with every government, every politician, every decision. As a Zionist, I am free to criticize policies and governments of Israel, just the same as I am to criticize the Canadian government or the American government or any other government. I can believe that the Israelis who spit on Christians should be charged, and I do. I can believe that the violence in Judea and Samaria needs to be stopped, and I do. I can believe that every single Israeli, regardless of religion, who commits rape, should be tried and should face the harshest punishments, and I do. I can believe that every single war crime committed by an Israeli should be prosecuted, and I do. I can believe that Israel should be held to the same standards of every other nation, and I do. The only things I don’t do, because I’m a Zionist? Call for the destruction of the only Jewish nation in the world. Hold them to a far higher standard than everyone else, just because they’re Jewish. Spread false propaganda about them, just because they’re Jewish. Because even though you pretend that’s “antizionism”, it’s just masking your true motives. Jew hatred.
2,294
878
5,093
246,936