When academics respond to our terrible papers saying they are actually sound, this is very useful to us in demonstrating what we have been arguing about what values and epistemology this kind of scholarship actually values.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Our papers do not show that it is bad to work on an epistemology which believes that knowledge is a construct of power perpetuated by discourse. It shows that this epistemology is perfectly acceptable and even required within certain subdisciplines.
Show this thread -
Therefore, our papers will not have much impact on the people who know this is already happening and think it's great. We hope it will have some impact on the people, mostly liberal academics, who have been telling us this isn't really happening & scholarship is still rigorous.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure that's the current takeaway. And it's certainly more modest than Sokal who put in things that were demonstrable absurdities that should have been rejected on site. And if you falsified raw data that isn't something peer review normally tests.
-
Well, they should ask to look at data but they should also look at the conclusions being drawn from data and whether it is warranted. None of ours was. This matters when such things go into the canon of knowledge.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Now that's quite a thought. Papers intended to be nonsense and/or invalid could be correct because of bias in the editorial and acceptance process.
-
Literally the point. No but seriously- they were told in editing that their "dog park" paper had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the journal, but were invited to edit it to become suitable for the journal, at which point they lauded it. Like wtf seriously?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Actually dog rape culture is a legitimate field of study" I have to admit I did not see that one coming, but I should've. It's not the first time feminists adopt a hoax tenet just to save face. Take Freebleeding for example.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That screaming you hear comes from the pain multiple academics feel from having their toes stepped on. Even if the toes were deliberately exposed to an intellectual chainsaw, as it were.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
ISTR that people reacted to Sokal thus. Some said that he was a fraud, a few said that they had twigged his paper was a spoof, and some even said "there's something in his paper". Loonytunes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.