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
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 @Dan_Carrigg and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
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
4 replies 0 retweets 13 likes
The peer review process is vulnerable to publishing work that it finds sound, yes. That's actually how it works. It found ours sound because it had already published the stuff we cited. It even recommended more to us in review. The question is "Is it sound?"
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ChrisSchumerth and
That's an inferential leap I don't believe is warranted.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.