Tangent: while there's a lot of stuff here that's exciting, this line of thinking (and his way of communicating it) raises a few red flags with me (I am, potentially, being the voice of #orthodoxsuscpicion here). It
a) tries to collapse the distance between research and action. While it tries to bring together thinking and doing, it also has the side-effect of politicizing research (which some would say is good) and potentially polarizing it (which some, including me, might say is negative). You risk making knowledge partisan and excluding people from the process who think or believe different things. Then there's how
b) anger obscufates. He describes anger as a way of clarifying things, but anger can also make you see things in black and white – nuance gets lost. And as we saw with the museum this weekend
, nuance sometimes is the only way out. Then there's how
c) positioning oneself against dogma doesn't mean much because dogmas change all the time. These principles could become the new dogma. It's sounds more like being reactionary (being #resistance) rather than standing for something in its own right. Then
d) it leaves too much space for rhetoric over rigour. Passing through checks and balances in research in favour of blogging/broadcasting our thoughts to the world brings makes us, at times, not very different from pundits. They too might call themselves angry scientists. And it makes it hard to have a conversation with them. Lastly,
e) it seems like it could introduce 'getting likes' as way of measuring success.