Interesting read. But I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that they "overstated" their case re:Sociology. I think they've been pretty clear that they did not "crack that nut" and that their experience did not indict Sociology the same way it did the "Studies" (or at all).
-
-
I don't know what to say to you. It doesn't really help to say there are other kinds of problems in other fields too. That just means they should all be addressed.
-
It's not a "problem in another field." It's that peer review as a system is vulnerable to the sort of attacks you used. You proved that peer review is vulnerable to malicious agents seeking to abuse it. Kudos. But I don't think you proved more than that.
-
What do you mean? We targetted a very specific epistemology and ethical structure that isn't found in other fields & showed it to exist in this one. We couldn't publish an argument that using dildos make men less transphobic in a physics journal. The precedent isn't there
-
But you could make up experimental results like you did here. Or make up theory like you did here. You telling me honestly you don't think you could use this same general hack to get a string theory or m-brane paper published in physics theory?
-
Its not general. It is very specific. I don't know if there is a problem that can be exploited in physics. The bad epistemology would need to already be present in the body of work for it to work & I can't speculate on what that would be. I know little about physics.
-
Here's something that might be clearer. Suppose bad scholarship were being done on the dangers of fat to support sugar companies. This has been suggested. Hoaxers could test this by drawing on existing scholarship to write bad papers that would make the problem clearer.
-
Along the way, they could show that they got lots of direction from reviewers to say more about how fat is bad and sugar is good.This would then show a problem in knowledge production in that field. It is a different problem to the one in identity studies.
-
Essentially, a problem needs to exist for this kind of exploration to be able to draw on the scholarly canon to make their cases. This problem won't be same in every field but there can certainly be many fields which have problems.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think you did. You posit a causal mechanism. Then you do a lot of stuff. Then you claim what you did as proof. But I don't think your results prove the causal mechanism you're positing.
-
What causal mechanism do you think we're positing? This is our claim about the significance of the project.pic.twitter.com/LwG5ipJLwz
-
You're making claims about the truth-value of entire fields based on the fact you were able to hack the peer review system. And you're blaming post-modernism for the system's vulnerabilities. But I don't see the proof of connection between system vulnerabilities & ideology.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But I'm claiming that bad-faith papers can't show this about a specific set of ideas. In order to do that, you have to independently show that there's a problem with those ideas, which you haven't done.
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.