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.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
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."
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @bernybelvedere and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KetanJ0 @bernybelvedere and
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
We cannot reveal our funders or our supporters although many have agreed to have their messages of support screencapped with identifying details removed. They fear being fired and dogpiled as racists, sexists & homophobes for wanting this addressed.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @KetanJ0 and
Frankly, I think your donors are right to be concerned about that -- as you yourselves have no doubt experienced personally. But it also seems perfectly fair to be concerned about "dark money" and how may influence research. I can truly see both sides on this question.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Musa_alGharbi @HPluckrose and
Most importantly: they had zero creative (or other) input or control. We were entirely left to our devices.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @Musa_alGharbi and
Yes. We can't expect people to trust our integrity, particularly those motivated to write us off as in the pay of reactionary right-wingers, but we can point out that we'd be unlikely to have written so much about not letting the university fall to reactionary right-wingers.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
The criticisms leveled in this thread against Sokal Squared are a red herring festival. The salient consideration, if one trusts the self-reporting of the authors, is the unmitigated scandal of *any hoax-style paper at all* getting accepted in a sufficiently respectable journal.
4 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @bernybelvedere @HPluckrose and
Other considerations pale in comparison to this one. Again, if one trusts that the "experiment" went as the authors claim, the results are striking and grounds for academic introspection in the fields that got skunked.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
We just want people to look at what got in & what was progressing favourably, what we cited in order to be able to make the arguments we did and how we were directed by reviewers. Then they can make up their own minds whether there is any problem in this kind of scholarship.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @bernybelvedere and
This is why I fully support Helen, Lindsay, and Boghossian. They are not advocating a scorched earth policy towards the various studies.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.