I think there's been some pretty serious motte-and-bailey-ing in discussion of the hoax. It's broadly taken to undermine "PC" scholarship generally, and when you say that it doesn't do that, there's retreat to a more defensible specific claim that isn't very significant.
-
-
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.
-
We disclosed all of it and even presented the early papers which failed and which we now cringe about having become much more proficient in the field. And no, the project is incomplete. We think 10, probably 12 would have got in but we cannot claim certainty of this.
-
I was thinking specifically of your early papers, which are fleetingly mentioned in your video. Did I miss it in your post? I was looking for total # submitted, where they were submitted to, and to which journals. https://youtu.be/kVk9a5Jcd1k?t=166 …pic.twitter.com/TRqHE0lxgS
- 7 more replies
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.