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.
-
-
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.
-
Maybe. I'm not sure. I am pretty sure this method would never prove such a problem exists in any field, though. Anyone can do enough background to set up some decent cites and review, then lie about results or sneak in some glaring method flaw under a fake name.
-
I think you need to read our papers and see what you are suggesting could have been plausible scholarship.
-
I mean, you really think it'd be more difficult to say you blew hundreds of grand running a particle accelerator to get this data and try to get it into some obscure particle physics journal?
-
I have already explained very clearly why this isn't related to the point or purpose of the project a few times now so I will leave it here.
-
And I've already explained that your methods are unrelated to proving the point or purpose of your project.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think you guys need to say more about what you think counts as good epistemology, defend the claim that it is uniquely good, and that the alternatives are in error. Otherwise, it's question-begging all the way down.
-
Through their actions, the
#SokalSquared authors demonstrated that certain of the Humanities/Liberal Arts are less disciplines than forums for sophistry for certain social and political views. This is a feature of these subjects, not a flaw.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
10 minutes of Photoshop can get you into "Nano Letters", apparently.http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/14/some-very-suspicious-tem-images-in-nano-letters/ …
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.