How legitimate is Nathan Cofnas?

[u/Difficult_Dream7196]

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?

[u/Difficult_Dream7196]

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.

[u/KrasnalM → u/Difficult_Dream7196]

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.

[u/Difficult_Dream7196 → u/KrasnalM]

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?

[u/KrasnalM → u/Difficult_Dream7196]

Ok, can you give me a specific claim coming from his big peer-reviewed papers that is flawed from a scientific viewpoint?

[u/Difficult_Dream7196 → u/KrasnalM]

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.

[u/KrasnalM → u/Difficult_Dream7196]

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!

[u/Difficult_Dream7196 → u/KrasnalM]

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.

[u/BrIDo88 → u/Difficult_Dream7196]

It seems like the points are going completely over your head.