"Grievance studies" isn't a "methodology." It's something you made up. There is an array of ideas about race, gender, social roles, group identity, structural disadvantage, the history of such, etc., some sound, some unsound. Blanket criticism is dishonest strawmanning.
-
-
Replying to @willwilkinson @ConceptualJames and
And we are criticising the unsound ones and to differentiate them from rigorous scholarship, we spelled out a very specific approach that we were criticising. See"What is the problem?" https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ … See the discussion where we say this does not warrant blanket rejection
2 replies 2 retweets 47 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
Thanks. What I see in this section is, in fact, a blanket dismissal of constructivist epistemology and anti-realist metaphysics. I don't see evidence of serious intellectual engagement.
7 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
At least half of mainstream analytic epistemology and philosophy of science is constructivist. You're staking out an empyrean perspective and arrogating to yourselves authority to referee some of the hardest questions in the history of thought, as if you've cracked them.
12 replies 2 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
But you haven't. As far as I can tell, you haven't even approached them in any serious way. The basis for your claims against "grievance studies" applies to a huge range of serious, maximally rigorous philosophical opinion.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
Unless you press press your claims from a narrower, better defended set of assumptions, people who actually do have high intellectual standards have little reason to take any of this seriously.
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
You really don't find it disturbing that it is possible to, basically, make stuff up and get your work published in 7 journals in a year by simply imitating a style and a set of ideological buzzwords? You still think that process has integrity?
4 replies 3 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @ChrisSchumerth @willwilkinson and
I think you're missing the point. Nearly any field is vulnerable If you take 3 people with some experience in publishing and give them a year to try to hack at academic journals and consider any success rate higher than 0 to prove rot at the ideological core.
5 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
Other fields have knowledge production problems, yes. The key is finding out what the problem is. In this case, it is a very specific ideology rooted in postmodernism that we wanted to show & we did. If you don't see a problem with the papers we wrote, the ones we cited & reviews
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
What causal mechanism do you think we're positing? This is our claim about the significance of the project.pic.twitter.com/LwG5ipJLwz
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.