And we are criticising the unsound ones and to differentiate them from rigorous scholarship, we spelled out a very specific approach that we were criticising. See"What is the problem?" https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ … See the discussion where we say this does not warrant blanket rejection
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
Thanks. What I see in this section is, in fact, a blanket dismissal of constructivist epistemology and anti-realist metaphysics. I don't see evidence of serious intellectual engagement.
7 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
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.
12 replies 2 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
But you haven't. As far as I can tell, you haven't even approached them in any serious way. The basis for your claims against "grievance studies" applies to a huge range of serious, maximally rigorous philosophical opinion.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
Unless you press press your claims from a narrower, better defended set of assumptions, people who actually do have high intellectual standards have little reason to take any of this seriously.
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @willwilkinson @HPluckrose and
You really don't find it disturbing that it is possible to, basically, make stuff up and get your work published in 7 journals in a year by simply imitating a style and a set of ideological buzzwords? You still think that process has integrity?
4 replies 3 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @ChrisSchumerth @willwilkinson and
I think you're missing the point. Nearly any field is vulnerable If you take 3 people with some experience in publishing and give them a year to try to hack at academic journals and consider any success rate higher than 0 to prove rot at the ideological core.
5 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
This wasn't just randomized word salad. They very carefully crafted different attacks. You think it'd be impossible to spend a year cooking up econ theory and baking fake econometric results that say markets are great and deregulation is good? Only proves the system can be hacked
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Dan_Carrigg @ChrisSchumerth and
I don't have this knowledge but, in principle, this could be done in economics, if there is already much terrible work to cite as authority for writing papers which make specific bad claims and then showing this alongside the reviewer comments which required & directed them.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Dan_Carrigg and
So instead of exposing a field like econ that is used as justification for policies of austerity (with the negative impact on a lot of lives) you decided to go for some obscure sub-subdisciplines like fat studies to own the postmodernists?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I am not an economist. I am a student of the humanities with knowledge of postmodernism and literary theory. I support economists taking issue with any problem they see in their own field and hope they'd support doing so in mine.
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.