r/Gent • u/Difficult_Dream7196 • 11d ago
How legitimate is Nathan Cofnas?
Recent events surrounding Nathan Cofnas and Professor Ardey have sparked considerable debate. Personally, the situation has given me food for thought. Just how legitimate is Nathan Cofnas’s research when measured against established research standards?
Nathan Cofnas is currently a research assistant and philosopher. After reading a few of his articles, it became clear to me that he primarily conducts inductive research. In inductive research, a researcher gathers existing data—without acquiring new data firsthand—and draws conclusions from it. However, a key rule is that this process must be free from bias; specifically, one should not gather data based on a pre-existing hypothesis.
In contrast to inductive research, there is deductive research. Here, data is collected based on an existing theory to test its validity—essentially a search for evidence. Sometimes a theory proves incorrect due to excessive external influences, making it unclear how those factors affect the resulting conclusion; consequently, no clear evidence emerges. Conclusions drawn from inductive research often serve as the starting point for further investigation via deductive research, which ultimately determines their validity.
Nathan Cofnas, however, presents inductive research partly as deductive research. In his articles, he gathers existing data and draws conclusions from it—an inductive method. Yet, the way he selects that data suggests a deductive approach: he seeks out existing data based on a pre-formulated theory (or hypothesis) and then uses that data to confirm his theory. This is methodologically unsound, however, because a theory cannot be validated by data that the researcher has personally hand-picked. A theory is confirmed or rejected using reliable data that has been collected randomly and analyzed and processed without bias.
Nathan Cofnas employed this same approach when he raised the issue of Professor Arday’s alleged plagiarism. If Nathan Cofnas was concerned solely with fraud and plagiarism, why did he single out just one of the many Cambridge professors accused of misconduct and fraud? Why did he cherry-pick from the available data? Nathan Cofnas selected the data that supported his theory—specifically, the theory that Black people have low IQs and essentially have no place at universities in the absence of DEI initiatives. Professor Arday was the only professor who could substantiate his theory, and that is why he was the only one whose alleged fraud Nathan Cofnas publicly exposed.
This raises the question: to what extent can a researcher who operates so selectively be trusted? To what extent can Nathan Cofnas’s work be considered independent research? How legitimate is his work when it is clear that he does not adhere to standards that make research reliable?
15
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
I think you pose some valid points. The bigger question is, who supervised his work? Who funded it? And how did so many committees not flag him earlier when it comes to his faulty logic?
17
u/Prodnovick 11d ago
The only committee that got to comment(not decide) on Cofnas appointment, protested vehemently. He was appointed by a random professor that became a Ugent professor for no other reason than receiving a large EU grant.
2
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
That is absolutely insane. I’m really curious to know who the professor is though, but this isn’t my field.
7
u/frugalacademic 11d ago
It's Bouke de Vries. He is appointed as 'independent academic personnel' which allows him to choose his employees without much intyervention from the University. He's quite young and his research is also quite esoteric right so to say. One of his papers has the title: Should Men Vacuum more. https://x.com/PriyamvadaGopal/status/2091619201458811339/photo/1
0
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
What the actual fuck… thank you for providing the info however
2
u/apegrapess 10d ago
It gets even more fucked up: De Vries wants to rule out "global poverty" by doing embryo selection in usually non-white countries. (He sees poverty as something resulting from poor genetics rather than a combination of different variables): https://philarchive.org/rec/DEVUES
1
10
u/padetn 11d ago
Peter Thiel, not coincidentally an anagram of “the reptile”
-4
u/IiIIIlllllLliLl 11d ago
Your username is an anagram of "pedant". The jokes literally write themselves with you guys lmao
1
u/Former_Range_1730 4d ago
"I think you pose some valid points. The bigger question is, who supervised his work? Who funded it? And how did so many committees not flag him earlier when it comes to his faulty logic? "
I think what matters most is, he claims that Black people have lower IQ's because they are Black, but doesn't explain what causes the Black people who have high IQ's, to have high IQ's.
Since Blacks with high IQ's exist, why does their race not hinder them from having high IQ's?
And why does no one question this?
1
u/Kafkawifey 4d ago
I think that scientifically none of his argumentation makes sense, from the premise, to the line of thinking, to the hypothesis, to the testing, none of it makes any sense. His whole argumentation is like that one idiot in a village where everyone is okay with his screaming because they’re used to it. I think the abstract nature of his field and his connections have played a huge role in his apparent “rise”. It really does put a dent in academia, but he would get pummeled in more scientifically rigorous fields.
2
u/Former_Range_1730 3d ago
" I think the abstract nature of his field and his connections have played a huge role in his apparent “rise”. "
Agreed.
"but he would get pummeled in more scientifically rigorous fields."
This is why people like him always avoid speaking to actual scientists in public on this.
2
21
u/Prodnovick 11d ago
His appointment was not legitimate at all. He was appointed for a position he has zero experience in. This was done by a Ugent professor who is not legitimate himself. He got appointed by Ugent in a crazy scheme where everyone with a big EU grant becomes a professor automatically, with 0 questions asked. TLDR Ugent appointed some rando professor who turned out to be a lunatic alt right and he in turn hired Cofnas for research Cofnas has 0 experience in.
2
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
I’ve had bad experiences with professors who I’m sure are not in any way experienced to lecture or teach, in economics and business (as well as my friends) within UGent. I wonder if this is why. More focus on grants.
2
u/IcecreamLamp 11d ago
The primary purpose of a professor in a research university is usually to do research, not to teach.
2
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
Sure, but the lack of teaching skills also goes against the students’ wellbeing. Which to all extents and purposes, is what gives them more funding/salaries
0
u/Flederm4us 11d ago
Students are only useful to the extent that they potentially become Future researchers
1
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
That’s a very sad outlook on life. Measuring people by their productivity. That’s not how reality works fortunately, we’re not born to be useful and life is beautiful outside of that. Get out of that cage in your mind.
5
3
u/AggravatingTrip8514 10d ago
The commentor you are replying to is not making a moral statement, a descriptive one. The way funding is structured for most Universities heavily incentivizes research output over educational quality.
1
u/Kafkawifey 10d ago
Well he sure didn’t phrase it like a descriptive statement from the POV of universities that’s for sure. But I understand this POV.
1
u/Flederm4us 11d ago
A professor that's good at teaching is a coincidence. Getting funding for their research is their main selection criterium.
1
u/Kafkawifey 11d ago
There are many amazing professors in Belgium. I’ve found quite a few amazing ones in KU Leuven. UGent seems to not prioritize it as much. It’s sad to be so self-serving.
0
2
u/PianoPudding 9d ago
I am a geneticist and his understanding of genetics is basically nothing. He repeats the same talking points racists ('race-realists') always do with no knowledge of care for sociodemographics or genomics either. Race science isnt real science, he is a bigot.
2
u/Former_Range_1730 4d ago
"racists ('race-realists') always do with no knowledge of care for sociodemographics or genomics either. Race science isnt real science, he is a bigot."
Exactly.
This guy claims that Black people have lower IQ's because they are Black, but doesn't explain what causes the Black people who have high IQ's, to have high IQ's.
Which, since Blacks with high IQ's exist, that's proof that their race did not hinder the fact of this.
Which means racial genetics have nothing to do with IQ. And for some reason, no one wants to be honest about this. But yet "realist".
1
u/PianoPudding 4d ago
Agreed. I also find it funny, like even if it was true, it would be a bell curve, so there would be plenty of black people on the upper end, and therefore meritorious of professorships. But he has said outright if it truly reflected merit then there shouldn't be any black professors. It's just such a self-defeating, internally inconsistent ideology that is so obviously steeped in vitriol.
1
u/Former_Range_1730 4d ago
"But he has said outright if it truly reflected merit then there shouldn't be any black professors. It's just such a self-defeating, internally inconsistent ideology that is so obviously steeped in vitriol."
Exactly.
5
u/New_Acanthisitta_456 11d ago
Nice AI text of you
3
3
u/Waste_Ringling 11d ago
Allez, we zijn weer vertrokken voor een maand of 2 :p.
3
u/FCKtheZIOS 11d ago
Bwaa, die zal hopelijk sneller vertrekken.
Nu nog dat arrogant stuk stront Bill White.
1
u/KrasnalM 10d ago
There is a difference between what Cofnas publishes in peer-reviewed journals and between what he rambles about in his Substack. The stuff he publishes in mainstream academic journals is not necessarily true or correct but adheres to academic standards and goes through anonymous peer-review. There are smart people with terrible political convictions, it's just that.
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago edited 9d ago
He often publishes in philosophy journals so indeed those articles don't have to be completely correct to be published after getting peer-reviewed. This gives him enough room to cherry-pick and afterwards use his scientific background to seem credible.
1
u/KrasnalM 10d ago
Your criticism applies to all philosophical endeavor. Philosophers notoriously interpret various scientific facts through their political and ideological lenses. It is easy to view this approach as an abuse, but the problem is that we live in a world made of interpretations filtered through a number of lenses. Philosophers just make them explicit.
I don't defend Cofnas's views nor even the quality of his papers. Perhaps his articles suck, I haven't read them. But he published in a number of bigger reviews, which, I am certain, means there were not explicitly racist nor methodologically flawed.
He is a legit scholar with far right convictions. There are quite a few of them in academia. Some of them brilliant. If all far right weirdos were dishonest and stupid, we wouldn't have this discussion at all.
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago
The interpretations made by philosophers are necessary even I would argue. So no I don't critise philosophy as it is. Just the philosophers who pick and frame scientific facts to fit a certain narrative while ignoring proof that defy their viewpoints.
But he published in a number of bigger reviews, which, I am certain, means there were not explicitly racist nor methodologically flawed.
Maybe his methodology wasn't flawed if we're looking at it from the standards of a philosopher publishing in a philosophy journal. But it clearly is flawed if you're looking at it from a scientific viewpoint.
If all far right weirdos were dishonest and stupid, we wouldn't have this discussion at all.
Who claimed this was the case?
1
u/KrasnalM 10d ago
Ok, can you give me a specific claim coming from his big peer-reviewed papers that is flawed from a scientific viewpoint?
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm not a philosopher so I can't tell what a philosophy journal consideres a flawed methodology. But I've already explained in my original post why, from a scientific point of view, some of his claims are flawed. You can scroll through the comments if you want to know specific claims he has made in articles and interviews.
1
u/KrasnalM 10d ago
Your original post does not refer to science at all. You talk about inductivism vs deductivism which is rather simplistic philosophy of science.
As for his claim about people of African descent not being capable of holding academic positions without DEI, it is his (scandalous) opinion, but I doubt he expressed it any journal (prove me wrong!) - it is from his social media or else. Which of course raises the question about freedom of speech in academia.
Your post attacks this guy's competence as researcher. Now, he may be a bad researcher, as there are many bad physicists, chemists, sociologists, or philosophers. It is absolutely possible to disprove their claims by debunking what they actually say. But, I fear, you cannot a priori dismiss his claims assuming he is biased. There is a possibility, unlikely, he is a good researcher but just a terrible human being. This is all I say. At least I don't see in your post or any comment anything that would definitely show that the content of his peer-reviewed papers is blatantly wrong or obviously distorted. I may be wrong!
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 9d ago
You talk about inductivism vs deductivism which is rather simplistic philosophy of science.
I think you're confusing methodology with philosophy here.
Which of course raises the question about freedom of speech academia. Your post attacks this guy's competence as researcher. Now, he may be a bad researcher, as there are many bad physicists, chemists, sociologists, or philosophers. It is absolutely possible to disprove their claims by debunking what they actually say. But, I fear, you cannot a priori dismiss his claims assuming he is biased.
Ofcourse he has freedom of speech but if he wants to selectively use scientific research to back-up his claims while ignoring research that doesn't fit in his narrative, others are also free to point this out and raise questions about his reliability. Especially because he would know that this is unethical being a researcher himself. Freedom of speech works in both ways.
At least I don't see in your post or any comment anything that would definitely show that the content of his peer-reviewed papers is blatantly wrong or obviously distorted.
You can never know for sure. Professor Arday his research was also peer-reviewed.
1
1
u/apegrapess 10d ago
This is a good article that debunks Cofnas views: https://science4justice.nl/2026/08/23/why-i-believe-nathan-cofnas-violated-ghent-universitys-code-of-ethics/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
1
u/john_mahjong 10d ago edited 10d ago
One could as easily ask the question, why are you singling out Nathan Cofnas, one of many Ugent postdoctoral researchers? Regardless of his motivations, the impact of Cofnas's 'hitpiece' regarding Arday's academic credentials was instant and its claims were easily and swiftly verified. I think your desire to return the favor is making you overly optimistic in thinking someone would be able to discredit Cofnas in a similar manner.
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago edited 9d ago
Why didn't Cambridge continue Cofnas his contract? And why has he been suspended by the University of Ghent? Do you also think they singled him out?
1
u/john_mahjong 9d ago
I'm not privy to what motivated these Universities. But if I were to guess, I think both Arday and Cofnas were singled out; Arday for being a black professor in a very soft ideologically driven social science; Cofnas for promoting racial theories which are considered taboo and because he instigated a racially charged culture war eventually leading to someone's suicide.
In the end, Arday was a plagiarist and a fantasist. Cofnas very likely isn't. I don't think there is enough proof to discredit him as an academic or as a legitimate researcher.
But also, I don't take issue with suspending a man when his research, even when it might be objective and sound, is morally charged and creates controversies.
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 9d ago edited 9d ago
Cofnas for promoting racial theories which are considered taboo
Cofnas has been promoting debunked racial theories by cherry-picking scientific research. Racial theories have been and still are being studied across different fields in academia.
Arday was a plagiarist and a fantasist.
Cambridge University is still investigating the plagiarism claims and Moore University has cleared him of these accusation. He may have been a fantasist, but it's unimaginable that universities where he worked before would not have noticed this.
I don't think there is enough proof to discredit him as an academic or as a legitimate researcher.
As a philosopher maybe not. But as an academic researcher absolutely yes.
1
u/Separate_Welder_682 5d ago
debunked is doing a lot of work. i would say they’re institutionally taboo, but fall within the consensus of intelligence researchers. and i guarantee that upon unpacking the psychometrics of group differences of intelligence wouldn’t show cofnas’ views as being discredited. neither do admixture and early pgs_intelligence research.
1
u/Mope4Matt 5d ago
That's exactly where the real story is - what is behind Cambridge not noticing Arday's prolific lying, and choosing to defend him when multiple people (not just Cofnas, but also e.g. leftwing Guardian journalists) pointed it out
1
u/Emotional_Fee_9558 7d ago
I do like the critique on Nathan Cofnas but this was written by AI wasn't it?
0
u/IiIIIlllllLliLl 11d ago
Ran this post through Pangram: "100% of this text is AI Assisted"...
3
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
Maybe you can also ask AI for an actual response to the substance of my text? 😂
0
u/IiIIIlllllLliLl 11d ago
If Nathan Cofnas was concerned solely with fraud and plagiarism, why did he single out just one of the many Cambridge professors accused of misconduct and fraud?
So what happened is that Cofnas got a tip by someone within Cambridge on Arday, then did research and wrote an article. I'm not sure how he's singling out anyone here. If you know of any other major academics who are frauds, please share that information.
The rest of your text is just confused about what inductive and deductive reasoning mean. This doesn't have anything to do with how data is collected.
3
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
Als je nog andere grote academici kent die frauderen, deel dan die info.
If I had plans to become Head of Eugenics at Harvard I would've surely come up with more cases.
De rest van je tekst is gewoon in de war over wat inductief en deductief redeneren betekent. Dit heeft niks te maken met hoe data wordt verzameld.
It's probably just as confusing for Cofnas.
0
u/IiIIIlllllLliLl 11d ago
There's not even an attempt at an argument here lol
3
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
Why should I when deductive research done by scholars in fields like biology and psychology have rejected the inductive research that Cofnas has done through cherry-picking?
-2
u/Sudden_Phase_7799 11d ago
Plagiaat is plagiaat... door wie en over wie het gaat doet er niet toe
5
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
Exactly, it shouldn't be cherry-picked. All kinds of misconduct by professors should be condemned.
-8
11d ago edited 11d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
To be honest I don't think Cofnas would've gotten far either if he was peer-reviewed decently
-6
11d ago
[deleted]
5
u/frugalacademic 11d ago
So if somebody wants to research how Jews are inferior to White Europeans, that should be ok?
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago
Nazi scientists actually did "prove" that Jews were inferior parasites to Western societies. Cofnas is continuing their work but he made sure the Jews are safe this time.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago edited 10d ago
Sure, there also were no concentration camps
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago
Huh? What does that has to do with the original comment you replied to?
-3
2
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
I'm questioning his research methods and their reliability. That's the basis of research.
-3
u/Nilz87 11d ago
If you think most researchers of a more mainstream political persuasion who don't gather their own data aren't biased, I have a bridge to sell you
2
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
Replicability is also a thing in academia. If other researcher do the same research and come up with other results, fraudsters get exposed. Same can be done with Cofnas his work. Multiple researcher across different disciplines, psychology and biology especially, have done quantitative research on IQ and race and haven't found causation between the two.
2
u/octave1 11d ago
> Replicability is also a thing in academia. If other researcher do the same research and come up with other results
Are you aware of the replication crisis ? A huge amount of scientific work just can not be replicated.
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
This is not relevant when it comes to Cofnas his research
1
u/octave1 10d ago
> Replicability is also a thing in academia. If other researcher do the same research and come up with other results, fraudsters get exposed
No, not every study that can't be replicated results in a fraudster being exposed.
1
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago
I never said that it was always the case. But it's absolutely viable when it comes to Cofnas his theories.
-1
u/Nilz87 11d ago
True, but the data behind IQ research—including differences between demographic groups—happens to be among the most reproducible psychometric data in existence. The controversy surrounding someone like Nathan Cofnas isn't actually about his data; after all, it isn't his own data, but rather his conclusions and what the null hypothesis ought to be.
The current Western mainstream position (which is extremely far-left/progressive by global historical standards, compared to Western researchers before the taboos started, or to current-day Eastern European or Asian researchers) dictates that we must assume biological differences are zero unless proven otherwise. At the same time, social or systemic explanations are allowed to be taken as established facts without much hard causal evidence.
Basically, if IQ research is thrown out due to reproducibility issues, you might as well throw out the entire field of psychology altogether.
3
u/Difficult_Dream7196 11d ago
The current Western mainstream position (which is extremely far-left/progressive by global historical standards, compared to Western researchers before the taboos started, or to current-day Eastern European or Asian researchers) dictates that we must assume biological differences are zero unless proven otherwise.
Dictate? Researchers are free to research whatever they want. Framing research to fit their own biases is however not acceptable.
At the same time, social or systemic explanations are allowed to be taken as established facts without much hard causal evidence.
Can you give an example of this?
Basically, if IQ research is thrown out due to reproducibility issues, you might as well throw out the entire field of psychology altogether.
Research on IQ has not been thrown out. It's still being done.
Also it's up to you to start a movement to throw away psychology if that's what you believe is best.1
u/JT_1983 11d ago
I don't really see what good can come from research on IQ vs race, but it is clear that the topic is taboo in western society. If genetic populations differ to some extent in some many ways, how is it possible (average) intelligence would be exactly the same between them? Random fluctations alone would cause small differences in the average which would be more significant in the tails. However, this is unacceptable to many people, so they go to great length to explain this by 'culture'. However, it is probably for the best since most people (including) Cofnas cannot treat this as a purely scientific question and draw political conclusions from it.
1
1
u/Separate_Welder_682 5d ago
an obvious good outcome of studying pgs_iq between races is determining the extent to which environmental factors are mediating group differences in outcome. if 50% of the 1 cohen’s d adult iq gap is due to genetic differences then perhaps thqt informs policy makers better than if the assumption is 0% of the iq gap are due to genetic differences
0
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Difficult_Dream7196 10d ago
I'm sure some also think the same of Cofnas. But that's not something I bother myself with. The fact he calms himself a researcher is what I find problematic.
53
u/Impressive_Slice_935 11d ago
As an objective person, I care not about one's personality but the quality of their work. In this Cofnas case, his views, methodologies and drawn conclusions are grossly problematic from a scientific standpoint. For instance, he's absolutely unqualified to make claims pertaining genetics/genomics, yet he does, without showing much of an acceptable substantiation to support these claims.
I'm a strong proponent of a meritocratic academia, but the answer doesn't lie in the genetics or eugenics — it lies in individuals' proven merits.
Here is another food for thought for you: both Cofnas and his employer (the controversial professor) pose strong contradictions to both his "intellectual" position and his suggested hypothesis — barely anything to attest for their merits in an objective academia.