I thought this was a pretty fair piece - on that Sokal2 hoax.https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax …
-
-
For papers which do get published, you can ask the authors, or experts in the field, if there's any way to test a paper's claims. Or whether the results are reproducible. It may be that the authors admit that their claims are fundamentally untestable, which is also worth knowing.
-
They do admit it. That is central to the feminist epistemology papers we cited which argue that to expect things to have evidence and be testable is to privilege the western scientific & philosophical tradition which is masculinist, white supremacist & imperialist.
-
Does every author in these journals subscribe to that philosophy? I have no idea.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And I'm not sure what an experimental protocol would look like when we relied on being directed by reviewers & learning how it worked as we went along. I'm certainly not asserting that this reflexive ethnographic kind of approach is the only or most convincing one
-
We have tried to be clear about what can be claimed to have been shown and what can't and it mostly comes down to being able to get the kind of stuff published that we did get published by using existing scholarship to justify it and following reviewers' directions. That's all.
-
People cannot deny this to be true but they can argue about what it means. Those opposed seem to be mostly saying that 1) our papers are actually good & there is no problem, 2) Whataboutism about how other fields have problems too 3) Character & motivational assassinations.
-
I think there were some people who weren't obviously ill-intentioned or stupid who were failed to be convinced by this study. Some people found it very convincing, Other people were more skeptical. Of course, there were also character-assassins.
-
Personally, I thought the hoax was very witty, and well done, and I'm predisposed to think most of this critical theory stuff is bollocks anyway. But, I also think that people are going to continue to argue over what if anything it proves.
-
Yes, but they do seem to be arguing over things outside of what we claimed it showed. People are saying we did not prove this epistemology or ethics to be any kind of a problem and we didn't in that project. That was about showing it to exist. We have argued against it elsewhere.
-
They are saying we did not prove knowledge production to be worse in these fields than anywhere else but this project was not about that either & did not make that claim. We support people addressing other kinds of problems with knowledge production in other fields.
-
OK, but I still think that's an honest criticism, even if you feel you can adequately answer it, and have adequately answered it. The 'control' question is a natural one for people to ask.
- 17 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.