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.
-
-
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
This wasn't just randomized word salad. They very carefully crafted different attacks. You think it'd be impossible to spend a year cooking up econ theory and baking fake econometric results that say markets are great and deregulation is good? Only proves the system can be hacked
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
I don't have this knowledge but, in principle, this could be done in economics, if there is already much terrible work to cite as authority for writing papers which make specific bad claims and then showing this alongside the reviewer comments which required & directed them.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Dan_Carrigg and
Because that is less hacking the system as playing to its existing biases to show they exist for those who think everything is just fine.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
That sounds a lot like hacking to me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Maybe I don't understand hacking then! Does the analogy acknowledge that the problem is already inherent in the system and it's not that we introduced things they wouldn't normally have published?
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.