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
This is astonishing. Who funds the heterodox academy? Why should it matter?
5 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @clairlemon @HPluckrose and
First, HxA does publically disclose its donors: https://heterodoxacademy.org/about-us/philanthropic-donors/ …. Funding sources are relevant for evaluating research findings, for the reasons described here: https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Academic-Corruption-Works/244703 …. (1/2)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Musa_alGharbi @clairlemon and
(2/2) But a lack of disclosure is a reason to pay extra scrutiny to research -- not to dismiss it altogether. So it IS a bad argument to say, "we don't know thier funders, so let's just write it off as propaganda." People are wrong not to engage with the findings, as I note.pic.twitter.com/9w4Z3E8r2K
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Musa_alGharbi @clairlemon and
And again, as noted above, donors are probably right to be concerned w/ "coming out" given how much Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have been smeared just for carrying out the experiment. But this anonymity does give people a legitimate reason to scrutinize influences/ motives.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
OK, but even if we were secretly really ill-motivated - far-right reactionaries who wanted to destroy universities & take women's & minorities rights away - would it make any difference to the sources we cited, papers we got accepted, reviewer comments we got?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @Musa_alGharbi and
The answer is simply, 'maybe', but more importantly, 'sometimes without you knowing that it's happening', hence the need for disclosure.https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/can-the-source-of-funding-for-medical-research-affect-the-results/ …
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.