Talk:David Gelernter

Science and technology advisor
So, was he appointed as Trump's advisor or not? --Историк2010 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

He wasn’t. Trump left the position vacant for a long time and finally nominated Kelvin Droegemeier. &#8592;Hob 04:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Conservative Anti-Intellectualism
"America progressed smoothly from Presidents George Washington through Dwight D. Eisenhower, but went to hell in the 1960s and has yet to recover. Radicals have taken over the universities and spread their poison. That is the gist of David Gelernter's book ... Patriotism and families once flourished, Gelernter argues, and then patriotism disintegrated into bitterness, and the nuclear family crumbled ... There was a time when those elite schools were run by a benign establishment, generally white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who saw their role as civilizing and uplifting. But the WASP's were knocked out by what Gelernter calls PORGI's, "post-religious, globalist intellectuals," who took over and indoctrinated the students."


 * Dreaming of a World With No Intellectuals, chronicle.com, July 16, 2012. Nemissimo (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

isn't that more like anti-indoctrination, rather than anti-intellectualism? isn't it a bit rich to call a yale compsci prof "anti-intellectual?"


 * Isn't that complaint more than a bit foolish when the title is "Dreaming of a World With No Intellectuals"? Gelernter rails against "intellectualism". If you find that odd, complain to him. And to call Gelernter's position "anti-indoctrination" is about as POV as one can get. Of this is all moot since it's a quote, but you would have to have an IQ above room temperature to grasp that. -- Jibal (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the reviewer's position is that to equate teaching with indoctrination is inherently anti-intellectual, and that it is hypocritical for a professional intellectual/professor to make such an argument.


 * That could be, but it's beside the point because Gelernter himself explicitly rails against "intellectualism". Anyway, it doesn't matter what any of us think. -- Jibal (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Reads like an advert in places.
See above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.13.71 (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving Mirror Worlds ' content into the main company article
There is too much elaboration on the company and the activities within that, here in a BLP. It would seem proper to move the same into the main article instead. Devopam (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did the Unabomber choose Gelernter?
The article notes that Gelernter was targeted by the Unabomber, but doesn't state why he was targeted. Why was Gelernter targeted? Even if Kaczynski had a lousy explantion, what was it? If it was, say, because Kaczynski was against the use of computers, then also, how did Kaczynski settle on Gelernter, of all computer programmers? It would be nice to have it in the article. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * While part of it was the fact that Gelertner was a computer programmer and "advancing the course of technology in the world," the main cause was the book he published two years prior to the bombing titled Mirror Worlds, which the NYT praised as written in the article. It's not known how Kaczynski came across the book, but it is certainly what made Gelernter a target and put him on the Unabomber's radar. In a letter Kaczynski criticized Gelernter's overly positive view of the development of the World Wide Web and wrote that advancements "are inevitable only because techno-nerds like you make them inevitable. If there were no computer scientists there would be no progress in computer science." Thus, he targeted Gelertner because he saw him as an actor in advancing computer science who predicted continued expansion of computer technology. 173.19.0.114 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Darwin pseudoscience
I guess it may be relevant that Gelernter has fallen for Stephen Meyer's pseudoscientific ideas. But shouldn't we use secondary sources instead of linking Gelernter's own misleading comments embracing Intelligent Design fallacies? Here is what Jerry Coyne wrote about the subject. Rather than the biology-illiterate layman Gelernter's writings, we should use what an actual expert writes on the subject. Or, if that is not good enough, we should apply WP:FRINGE and not mention the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Some IP inserted a direct quote from Gelernter:
 * "According to Gelernter, "The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain", though Gelernter maintains that he has no dispute with Darwin's model for natural selection, only with the neo-Darwinist computational model for the creation of new proteins: "...of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 10^74 will be capable of folding into a stable protein [required for a new mutation]."
 * says about that, correctly, "Sigh. These statistics are based on a willful misunderstanding of basic biochemistry." Other biologists say the same (because it is obvious to anybody who understands who evolution works).
 * Wikipedia should not promote fringe theories like that. See WP:FRINGE. I will remove that crap now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yale Daily News is not an authority on climate science or on consensus in climate science
"His view on climate change is out of step with the overwhelming scientific consensus.[26]"

While the statement may be true, the citation for it is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blicher (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * News sources are not good enough for claims that contradict a scientific consensus. But when they support it, they are. You cannot expect scientists to respond to every nincompoop who disagrees with them, so you will typically not find any scientific sources for use in articles about those nincompoops. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And how is it determined whether a claim "contradicts" or "supports" the scientific consensus? Your personal opinion? That doesn't fly on Wikipedia. The reference should be replaced. 2001:569:7F63:5900:CD96:116C:64BC:9577 (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Read Scientific consensus on climate change and WP:NOTDUMB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)