It has now been a week since we revealed our grievance studies project. I'm going to have a reflective thread on it & then I'd really like to focus on other things. Like the Battle of Ideas!
-
-
IMO if you want to show that some areas of scholarship are fraudulent you have to go after them by disproving main theories, criticise main arguments etc. Even if they don't listen or engage, people don't publish hoax studies that vaccines cause autism for a reason after all
-
We've been doing that for years. I am currently writing a book on it. People deny that the problem exists. We wanted to show that it does by getting papers published which draw on main theories and arguments.
-
Stick to it then, don't go into pseudoscience.
-
I don't know what is pseudoscience about what we did? Why shouldn't we test our claim that epistemologically poor ideologically biased papers are being not only accepted but encouraged by certain journals? You've said what we should do but not why doing this too was wrong.
-
Again you are showing that the process is flawed. You didn't disprove theory.
-
It's not an attempt to "disprove theory." It's an attempt to show that epistemologically poor and ideological motivated scholarship is required in certain fields. You are v confused about the purpose of the project but we have set it out at length so I'm not explaining again here
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.