That is precisely the point we are trying to show. These papers didn't get in because of carelessness or fluke. They got in because peer review genuinely favours these ideas & even requires them. We've been saying this for years and being accused of strawmanning identity studies. https://twitter.com/JohnQPublic100/status/1050046512233926656 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @JohnQPublic100
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.
0 replies
1 retweet
4 likes
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.