That's a mundane, accurate, realist position. I think they're taking too little care in failing to note that much "grievance studies" work reflects this view, rather than a maximally radical "there is nothing outside the conceptual scheme" view.
-
-
I don't want gender studies defunded. I want it made rigorous. I'd actually like to teach it. I understand why people think it is providing nothing worthwhile right now tho.
-
Do you react in this way when feminists who have argued a problem to exist somewhere in regards to women's rights then investigate it and test this claim? Would you say 'Your previous statements show your intent to argue that sexism exists. Therefore looking for evidence is bad."
-
It depends how they did it. If they mask the full number of trials, ignore all negative results, perform no statistical analysis, fail to disclose funders, avoid peer review and then describe the work as an 'experiment', then yes.
-
You are being dishonest. We have revealed all the information in our fact sheet and provided all essays and reviews. We didn't need to mention the ones which failed but we did. What statistical analysis do you want & how would it work? How did we avoid peer review?
-
Al-Gharbi argues that in an ideal world, they would have subjected their findings to peer review (1st image) -- but also acknowledges that it did not seem possible in this case (2nd image) due to the fact they were about to be "scooped" after being prematurely exposed.pic.twitter.com/UTWn7r8nvI
-
Al-Gharbi was able to make determinations like the one attached here, precisely because the trio did provide rough information on thier failures.pic.twitter.com/PXeepqBv4p
-
It is true they did not disclose thier donors, as would be typical for a published research paper. A recent article in
@chronicle well-explains why this kind of disclosure is important for evaluating research: https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Academic-Corruption-Works/244703 …. -
However, as it relates to the other criticisms, the trio DID disclose some information on failures, and peer-review may not have been a realistic option, all things considered.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The more I read this sort of "criticism" from folks like
@KetanJ0 the more I find similarities between them and creationists and other religious fundamentalists. To them it is so clear they have the answer to everything that any evidence to the contrary must be heresy. -
I know you mean that as a pejorative but it's an important point. I'm cool with knowing that my politics and worldview colours my conclusions absolutely all the time. It's just, if I make a strong conclusion, I need strong, controlled and hard evidence to back it up.
-
The heart of scientific inquiry is knowing your suspicions might be wrong, and subjecting those to the unforgiving furnace of the scientific method. The stronger your convictions, the higher the requirement for evidence.
-
As you rightly point out, something goes horribly wrong when people start assuming they're innately immune to bias, motivated reasoning and fallacy. That tends to be plastered over with fervour, mockery and high emotion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.