system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How to politely refute someone who has gone emeritus

Hi, 
I work alongside an emeritus professor who has "gone emeritus". They've not published in their original field in over a decade (well they are emeritus). They're publishing material in a different field to that which they are an expert in. Their 5 publications in the last six years are not well received, with few citations (about one article per year - no books/chapters - 5 citations per year per article - good articles get over 100 citations a year in our field). Their talks on the subject garnered a lot of controversy, the professor has been told that "you can't do that" by many people who have spent their careers in the field. 

If the professor took the position that their work was the personal opinion of a learned fellow then I would see that as a net benefit to humanity. However, the professor takes the position that their personal opinion is based on a more rigorous method and understanding of the subject than those who actually do the subject, have made mistakes and learnt from them, and follow best practice etc. At this point I admit, as everyone does, that there are problems in best practice, but that it is best practice for many reasons. Further, the differences between the professor's approach and that of the field as taught, practised, and presented in books and articles are not technical, interpretative, or a small matter. He would not pass a first year PhD continuation exam. This says a lot about the open-mindedness/low standards required for him to have passed peer review and become published. I am for open-mindedness and the ability to try-out new ideas without being chastised. However, whilst the external world operates approximately as a free marketplace of ideas, the politics of the institution mean that personal power rules here.

I have decided to refute the professor's position in writing. This is because he still has significant influence and is having a strong negative impact on many people, including myself. I understand the politics of doing such a thing are very risky to me. Even if he were simply insisting that 1+1=3, anyone who disagreed is painting a target on their own backs. 

I intend that what I write will only be read by people within the relevant political circle. One of the leaders of this circle comes from the field which my supervisor falsely claims expertise in, and is very sympathetic to my position. This leader has pressed my case before, but is unable to change matters. The other three effectively support the emeritus professor whilst claiming no knowledge of the subject. 

I have thought about the best way to present my case. The facts of the case are clear: the professor's work does not cite the major sources anywhere, does not include the major concepts, does not explain why his work does the exact opposite of/ignores best practice, does not explain how his "rigorous, transparent, systematic, objective" method is any different from having an opinion etc. This is not a matter of building a strong case, but of presenting a case in a sympathetic but forceful manner.

I intend to replicate his argument in as positive as light as possible. Then in my critique I plan on using the Principle of Charity (taking kind interpretations of his work, understanding, knowledge without putting words in his mouth). 

I have spoken to the professor about my concerns. He takes no negative criticism. His initial response, years ago, was to repeatedly call me stupid. Now he does not call me stupid, but instead tells everyone else that my views cannot be trusted. I have tried to be polite and respectful but there can be no academic argument, for example he laughed at me when I asked his opinion of a set of operating principles that directly contradict his published approach. I wish this were a joke. 

Ultimately, if the political positions are maintained then nothing will change, even if I have shown that the professor is deluded. However, I need to present my case for my own well-being and integrity. It is likely that I will move on from here if nothing changes and so I want to have done everything within my power before I call it a day.  

What advice would you give in presenting my argument?

**TLDR**: How do you politely say "dude, you may have power but you haven't a clue"
gpt
An unfortunate truth is that many professors slide towards senile dementia before they retire. Instead of regarding this fellow as a cantankerous colleague whose professional opinionfacts fly in the face of logic and good sense, consider thinking of him in a gentler light as a senile dementia sufferer. Then ask yourself whether it's worth your time and effort to discredit his non-work that no one in his current field seems to believe.

It could be that the people who still support him and claim ignorance of his field are just avoiding dealing with the reality that he's losing it out of politeness.