That's what critics were pointing out from day one. Your sacrifice was pointless, it achieves nothing and to make matters even dumber you sacrificed on your own altar. Why didn't you choose side of legitimate scientific inquiry.
-
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Christ sacrificed himself so he could save humanity from his own wrath, which was dumb because as God he could save people by other means like say education. What I'm trying to say is, I'm deeply disappointed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @filth_and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @filth_and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @filth_and
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose added,
Helen Pluckrose @HPluckroseReplying to @adamTHX1138Can I suggest you read our thing? At least the discussion part? https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ … I'm glad you know feminist & critical race epistemology, masculinities studies, fat studies & social justice social work & pedagogy publish stupid shit. Others don't & it's very influential. pic.twitter.com/bOQS3IUm6f1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Again you are showing that the process is flawed. You didn't disprove theory.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.