In 2025, we published an important Review article in Conservation Biology about intimidation as ‘epistemological violence’ (see also on my Publications page). Early 2026, we received a rather flawed response by Simpson et al. This new Comment responds to that, defending our original Review article (Koot et al. 2025), in which we argue that critical conservation researchers sometimes face epistemological violence: intimidation practices suppressing unwelcome knowledge. Replying to Simpson et al.’s criticism, which dismissed our article as ‘grievance politics’, we identify four key failures in Simpson et al.’s response: first, they fail to define their own key terms while accusing our theoretically-grounded and well-defined concept of vagueness. Second, they misrepresent our original position as rejecting positivist approaches when we actually advocate complementarity of social and natural sciences. Third, they overlook how marginalized local and Indigenous communities suffer most severely from these dynamics—a point central in our original Review article. Fourth, Simpson et al. repeatedly criticize positions we never advanced, including claims about monolithic blocs or natural science as inherently oppressive. Simpson et al.’s response clarifies that genuine academic debate and pluralism require respecting lived experiences, avoiding straw-man portrayals, and defining terms rigorously rather than delegitimizing critics. Their response does not uphold these basic standards of academic debate.

DOWNLOAD our new Comment here, or on my Publications page.