>Pinker is a jackass and a jerk

He might be, but this comment provides no argument as to whether he is, nor does it say anything about the subject matter.

Not to mention that even a "jackass and a jerk" can be absolutely correct, since those accusations are mostly about behavioral and/or moral failings, not intellectual.

He provided defence for Jeffrey Epstein at his trial for being a pedophile rapist pimp, and then remained friends with him after he was convicted of that.

There are many more points than that that could be made, but it does not seem necessary.

If they are similar this point, yes, they're not necessary, as they are totally irrelevant to the longbet in discussion, or to Pinker's work in general.

If Einstein was a serial killer on the side, relativity would still be a great theory...

There are millions of people who can provide at least as much insight as Pinker can ever manage. Let's listen to them instead of the creep who hangs out with rapist pimps.

>There are millions of people who can provide at least as much insight as Pinker can ever manage

That takes for granted what it should instead prove. Pinker, regardless of who he fraternizes with or what moral causes he supports or not, is an acknowledged scientist.

>Let's listen to them instead of the creep who hangs out with rapist pimps.

Who people hang with is irrelevant. We don't and shouldn't change who we listen to on technical/scientific/etc matters based on their personal morality (even less so based on someone's idea about that). We change who we listen to on those matters based on the quality of their arguments and domain knowledge.

In any case, we should not bring moralizing and posturing into discussions and into who we listen to, except if the morals in question are related to the subject matter.

E.g. I would be suspect to economic arguments from an economist who has been found to take money from states to push some agenda. But I wouldn't be suspect to economic arguments from someones who enjoys killing kittens. I just wouldn't take environmental / pet advice from that person...

Being an "acknowledged scientist" is something that, by one estimate I can find, about 7.8 million people can claim.

That's because you confuse it with mere scientist.

acknowledged: recognized as being good or important. "he's an acknowledged expert in the field"

I agree with you sir, not because of what you say, but how you say it!

Are you in his field?

Pinker hasn't really had a field for some time now. IMO, this poster is basically correct though the mode of exposition is not very HN approved.

I think he's a bit of a prick too.. but seriously, this isn't how HN works. If you're not a linguist or in stats then the critique is at best third hand, and basically common knowledge sour grapes. (All of the ego scientist stuff makes me mad, but I try to keep away from that)

You don't need to be in his field to notice he is an associate of Jeffrey Epstein.

Guilt by association is really toxic. Please don't open this door. Epstein had a little black book with thousands of names and you're basically starting "the crucible" because you want to win an argument.

I don't like Pinker as a public intellectual and not because of the company he kept, because of how sloppy he is with numbers, and an extremely argumentative egotistical posture. Some of his ideas are interesting.

If you're going to start bone pointing to evil, do it somewhere else.