(Opinion) Why Do Scientists Hate Each Other?

For a while now, I have pondered over the question of “Why do scientists hate each other?” It might sound weird, but over time it has become increasingly apparent to me. I’ve also learned about this in my classes with Professor Holtz.

For example, last year I posted the first version of my abstract on Nanotyrannus being Dryptosaurus. I admit that there were a few things that needed to be edited before I posted it to my old ResearchGate account, but that’s hindsight talking. However, that didn’t stop paleontologists from mocking the abstract on Twitter. Dr. Hans Dieter Sues Said that it was “Rubbish,” and “It will never get published.” Others mocked my methodology. One of them, a female (named Skye McDavid, I believe...), even emailed me to tell me how wrong I was. She said she was going to print a retraction, but decided against it (Oh gee, thank you for being so merciful, master). She said that if I wanted more info., then contact her about Nanotyrannus being a juvenile T. rex. This is because the majority opinion has decided that Nanotyrannus is T. rex. 

Honestly, I don’t want to say that her message to me was negative, but I could feel it just by reading it. I responded to her saying that Nanotyrannus doesn’t belong in T. rex, and I don’t know what happened afterwards. My friend Luke Skywalker Jedi Knight said that people on Twitter were rumbling about my response to the female scientist. Oh well… This is why I don’t have a Twitter account. People try to subdue each other (and worse), and it’s not a place for free-thinking and voicing one’s own opinion. Anyway, the reason why I didn’t just give in the pressure was because trying to fit Nanotyrannus into T. rex is the equivalent of trying to fit a square into a circle. Before, I believed that Nanotyrannus was T. rex. However, as I decided to do my own investigation, that belief started to fade. Of course, I do question myself but this is why you have to re-examine your data. So far, my data continues to place Nanotyrannus either in the species Dryptosaurus aquilunguis, or Nanotyrannus and Dryptosaurus are sister taxa that form a clade. If everyone else wants to put Nanotyrannus into T. rex, then so be it. I fail to see the evidence to support that theory, and I have the right to say so, even if I get a bunch of retractions and/or mean-spirited messages thrown at me.

There is a larger problem that I want to address: Scientists are very mean-spirited with each other. In my two classes with Professor Holtz and Merck, I have learned that scientists (at least, paleontologists and biologists) fight each other over various studies, hypotheses, and theories. I admit that I have heard some outstanding, or ludicrous, things before. I’m not going to say that I don’t have my own biases. However, if anything sounds different, then a mass of people will try to bring you down. In fact, my friend Sebastian Dalman told me that some scientists bully and force others to quit being scientists. That’s inexcusable, regardless of your education or status within a scientific institution, field, etc. 

There are a couple of ways to counteract this childish behavior:

1.) Ignore your nay-sayers. Block then if you have to. Of course, constructive criticism (even if it is hard to listen to) is/can be helpful. For example, in the original version of my abstract, I question if the Dryptosaurus holotype was an adult specimen. The female scientists who sent me that email said that the closed foramen on the vertebrae meant that the specimen was mature. That’s helpful criticism, and it ended up helping me in the long run to stick to my hypothesis. 

However, bullying is never helpful, not matter who you are. Dalman told me some stories, but for privacy’s sake I won’t divulge them.

2.) Do your own research, and come to your own conclusions. I was always told by my mother to learn the material that you had to in order to pass your classes, but always do your own investigation(s) outside of school. I have this message deeply engraved into my brain, and it has helped me a lot. It is my vow now, especially since I am now an amateur paleontologist.

Dr. Holtz did say to catch your mistakes before other people do (which would likely cause them to make fun and harass you). Like I said before, the original version of my abstract needed some work. I re-edited it when I made my Academia account, and I think it’s a lot better. I did get a nasty message regarding it from some Joe-blow on Academia, but I ignored them. 

Professor Holtz has shown, and stated, in class that scientists continue to change things on the field. However, if other people tend to listen to them is another matter. Regardless, everyone should have the right to voice their own opinions in science. Of course, one should do the scientific process before coming to a conclusion to make sure that they get accurate results. Also, keep re-checking your date too. Also, don’t be afraid to admit when you’re wrong. 

I wrote this in case any new science students, writers, etc. encounter any resistance to their ideas. You’re not alone. Just make sure to never give up, and constantly re-check your data. Sometimes, even if everyone tells you that you’re wrong and their right, that doesn’t mean that they are. That happens in science too. Just look up the history of the studies on whales and hippos, or the different “sects” of scientists studying crocodylomorpha.

Miles Morales' quote from Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023):

Links:
Pic:
https://images.app.goo.gl/rW4NAX98RhEYYMTEA

Website:

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/nah-imma-do-my-own-thing

Update (5/1/23):
So, the reason why paleontologists are so hostile towards each other, according to Professor Holtz, is because the field is competitive (Dalman also stated that to me), and people do not want to do anything new essentially. Essentially, new paleontologists want to make new discoveries (understandable), but other paleontologists want to stay more conservative. However, this reproduces a fear of trying to edit previous discoveries. 

I get that we want to have information stay the same (especially since a lot of the information we have now has taken years to uncover), but we need to make sure that the information that we have is correct. Even if that means having someone new come along and shake things up. Of course, not everything will stick. That shouldn't stop us from wanting to find correct answers, wherever they may lie. With all due respect to the paleontologists on Twitter that I annoyed back in September, someone needs to make sure that the information that we have on these prehistoric creatures is factual, regardless of how you may feel about that person's statements. Check to see if the statement has any truth in it, and if you think then it doesn't then fine. If it does, then maybe that person is on to something...

*Update (5/5/23):
I forgot to mention that paleontologists hating each other has been around practically since the practice was first invented. Look up Marsh vs. Cope in the bone wars. I remember Sir Richard Owens having to fight some of his contemporaries as well. I guess hating each other is part of the field. Sad, but true.

Update (5/10/23):
Yesterday, I learned during Dr. Merck's lecture that scientists who study turtles fight each other too! Ugh... It's starting to become very clear now that scientists can act like children sometimes.

Update (6/4/23):
After pondering over this again recently, and arguing with another person via email over my Saurophaganax abstract, I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to have to push through in order to continue. Being a paleontologist is my dream, and I've finally reached it (even though I'm an amateur one). I'll just have to ignore the people who are in my way.

Speech is over now.

Update (10/9/23):

The title of this post has become prophetic.

A few weeks ago, I was told that this post was circulating around Twitter. Apparently, my statement regarding Skye McDavid was seen as “sexist,” and everyone was treating me like a villain. I emailed my professor regarding the situation, and he told me that the paragraph with the quote “a female” was a phrase said by some people in a negative connotation. He said that I inadvertently said a sexist phrase. When I said “a female scientist” in the following paragraph regarding Miss McDavid, that was better because the word “scientist” was put after the word “female.” I never heard of this before, and I don’t know who these people are that made the phrase “a female” negative. It makes me sick that Miss McDavid, and her followers, would accuse me of being a sexist.

Tweets from Twitter:

Professor Holtz's response:

In response, I asked as many women as I could to get their opinion on the phrasing of my blog. One of them was a member of the LGBTQ+ community. All of them told me that I wasn’t being sexist. Two of the women told me that this phrasing controversy is all new, and that they’ve never heard of it before. One of the women worked in customer service, and the other was a retired police officer for 32 years. I’m just as lost as they all are. 

I’m even more disgusted that, if Miss McDavid felt uncomfortable about the first phrase, she could’ve contacted me via email and I would’ve changed it. I left my email on this blog multiple times. However, she didn’t and just went to complain on Twitter. Heck, she just posted a pic of the first paragraph that I mentioned her in, and not the second one in which I gave her the benefit of a doubt regarding her email.

Here's the two original paragraphs from above:

"For example, last year I posted the first version of my abstract on Nanotyrannus being Dryptosaurus. I admit that there were a few things that needed to be edited before I posted it to my old ResearchGate account, but that’s hindsight talking. However, that didn’t stop paleontologists from mocking the abstract on Twitter. Dr. Hans Dieter Sues Said that it was “Rubbish,” and “It will never get published.” Others mocked my methodology. One of them, a female (named Skye McDavid, I believe...), even emailed me to tell me how wrong I was. She said she was going to print a retraction, but decided against it (Oh gee, thank you for being so merciful, master). She said that if I wanted more info., then contact her about Nanotyrannus being a juvenile T. rex. This is because the majority opinion has decided that Nanotyrannus is T. rex. 

Honestly, I don’t want to say that her message to me was negative, but I could feel it just by reading it. I responded to her saying that Nanotyrannus doesn’t belong in T. rex, and I don’t know what happened afterwards. My friend Luke Skywalker Jedi Knight said that people on Twitter were rumbling about my response to the female scientist. Oh well… This is why I don’t have a Twitter account. People try to subdue each other (and worse), and it’s not a place for free-thinking and voicing one’s own opinion. Anyway, the reason why I didn’t just give in the pressure was because trying to fit Nanotyrannus into T. rex is the equivalent of trying to fit a square into a circle. Before, I believed that Nanotyrannus was T. rex. However, as I decided to do my own investigation, that belief started to fade. Of course, I do question myself but this is why you have to re-examine your data. So far, my data continues to place Nanotyrannus either in the species Dryptosaurus aquilunguis, or Nanotyrannus and Dryptosaurus are sister taxa that form a clade. If everyone else wants to put Nanotyrannus into T. rex, then so be it. I fail to see the evidence to support that theory, and I have the right to say so, even if I get a bunch of retractions and/or mean-spirited messages thrown at me."

However, I neglected to mention that I saw her, and her cohorts’, tweets about my abstract before she emailed me, which I thought were a bit disparaging. That’s why I wrote that snarky remark in the first paragraph about her in this post. Regardless, my response to Miss McDavid was respectful. However, as I also stated in the second paragraph regarding her, she continued to complain online after I sent the email. I was also told by a friend on Discord about a week ago that Miss McDavid went on other websites to complain about my abstract back when I first wrote it. I’ve always treated other female scientists on this blog with respect, and anybody who’ve read my blog before knows this. This is pathetic. 

I understand that paleontologists, or scientists in general, are critical of anything stated out of the ordinary. I understand that they are critical of anybody who doesn’t have the credentials that they’re looking for. Perfectly understandable. Always double-check what anybody says to see if it’s truthful. However, I refuse to let someone wrongfully convict my character and blow something that is nothing out of proportion. Or, someone that makes a big fuss out of a problem that can be easily rectified. I also refuse to be categorized with a sexist group with people that I don’t even know about. Therefore, I hereby separate myself from the paleontological community. I started feeling uneasy about the community before, but this was the final straw. I started this blog due to my love of prehistoric creatures, and that passion will always remain. As for people, well, I’ve spent 22 years trying to get along with them and it always ended in negativity. It’s time I started going into business for myself. I’m not going anywhere.

This is the final update for this post.

Update (3/13/24):
I know that I said that the previous update was the final one, but this story was way too similar to mine for me to pass on!

Apparently, accusing people of sexism, or whatnot, is a tactic used in the academic world nowadays to try and discredit someone. Usually, their character. This happened to former Harvard University professor, Roland Fryer. According to Lanum (2024), Fryer published a paper back in 2016 that stated that there was "no evidence of racial bias in police shootings." Police tend to use nonlethal force in subduing blacks and Hispanics, and less likely to shoot at those two groups of people, than they would against white people. This led to people losing their collective marbles, including Fryer's co-workers. Fryer said that he was threatened "four minutes after publication." He also stated that "some of his colleagues refused to believe the results after months of asking him not to print the data." Before he even published the paper, Fryer replicated the study and found the same results. He even "hired eight new assistants" to conduct the study again, and the results came back the same. When the backlash happened, Fryer and his family have had to live under police protection. he was later "suspended for two years from the university in 2019 after he allegedly engaged in 'unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.' He continues to deny the allegations." The dean of Harvard at the time, Claudine Gay, said that Fryer's "research and conduct with other employees 'exhibited a pattern of behavior' that failed to meet expectations within the community":

Funnily enough, in January of this year, Gay resigned as dean because she was accused of plagiarism and possible anti-semitism:

Fryer said that this was karma:

This is one of the wildest stories I've ever read. First off, Fryer is a black professor from Harvard. I don't think he would want to write a paper saying that people of color do not get targeted by law enforcement regularly. He was just publishing what he found from his research:

If the data do not match the public's conception of a matter, then it needs to be stated. Second, professional academics trying to force someone not to publish data, and then refusing to even consider his findings, is completely anti-scientific. Third, threatening someone like that is deplorable. Fourth, accusing someone of being a bad person, or of criminal activity, to make their character look bad because they published a paper you don't like, demonstrates just how evil these "academics" can be. They have the intelligence to get PhDs (which is a fantastic accomplishment), but they don't use that same intelligence when it comes to analyzing data that might go against their preconceived notions on a topic. If someone makes a mistake, that's a learning opportunity. I was taught that growing up, and I remember hearing that from paleontologists on old documentaries that I use to watch growing up. However, academics today (like paleontologists) don't allow mistakes because they feel like they're above that, and they honestly don't want to learn anything new. They focus on what supports their views only. I use to give them a benefit of a doubt, but that's almost all but gone at this point. And if they can't force you to submit, then they'll attack your character. It's cult-like behavior, honestly. It's the equivalent of a religious person accusing someone of being a heretic. Honestly, the left has become very cult-like, nowadays. This drove me away from progressivism to being a libertarian. Screw conservatives and progressives. 

For anybody that wants to get into academia as a profession, be careful of these tactics. Don't be like these people. Have the courage to have an open mind, and find out what's true by doing your own independent research. Also, don't be afraid of making mistakes. You're human, so you're going to make them regardless, but see it as a way to learn and get closer to the truth. Paleontology, for example, "is littered with some wonderful mistakes," as one paleontologist once said in the Trilogy of Life-The Making of of the Walking With Dinosaurs, Beasts, and Monsters said:

I wish I knew what this man's name was!

Lanum (2024):

https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-professor-all-hell-broke-loose-study-found-no-racial-bias-police-shootings.amp