You're conflating two separate things. What he was wrong about was the level of backlash over what he said. That doesn't mean the point he was making was wrong. People don't resign over simply losing a debate/being wrong.PeroK said:Or, on the contrary, it could be scientists arguing about something they know very little about. The fact is that Professor Elliffe wrote a letter and resigned his post as a result. Therefore, by definition, he did not understand what he was writing about - unless he accepted in advance that he would be forced to resign.
The article doesn't say he resigned in protest, it says he resigned because of the intensity of the backlash. Usually when people resign in protest they make a statement making it clear that that's why they are resigning, otherwise there's no value to it. It's not a protest if you don't tell anyone.Jarvis323 said:This was a concern to some faculty members because they thought it would cause a negative opinion of science. In there letter, they say Māori knowledge isn't science. People were offended by that, and the response led the faculty member to resign in protest.
Current social debate "rules" allow that the side that argues loudest and angriest can win by forcing the other side to withdraw either because they don't want to be dragged down to that level or even because they come into/fear physical danger (that's what people mean when they cite/criticize "cancel culture"). But I think it is wise to view those instances the opposite way - often it's the unhinged one is probably wrong. And in this case, certainly academics should not be reacting with unhinged vitriol to an academic policy issue/debate.Jarvis323 said:Then, depictions of these ideas go viral on social media and society has a large scale discussion about it. That discussion plays out where most of the arguments are expressed through insults, memes, and snippets.