Nobody listens to me, but my opinion is the best way to test these things is to agree to a protocol with those who are making the claims. And agree beforehand whether a particular result would disprove the claims.
-
-
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.
-
What is the criticism? That we should have focused on some kind of metastudy on problems with knowledge production across a wide range of fields instead of looking at a specific one? I'll be the first to say I don't have the expertise to do that. I couldn't test physics journals.
-
It's still seems a fair criticism to make. In the sense of criticising the conclusions of a study, not in the sense of criticising you as a person.
-
And even if that criticism has perfectly reasonable answers, I would think critics negligent if they didn't at least ask the question.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
4) Talk about the ethics of giving false names and claiming to have IRB approval and hoaxes generally. 5) Say other methods of investigating this would have been better.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
90% of your critics have literally said your argument is invalid cause you did not criticize other completely unrelated things... Its surreal to watch.
Thanks. 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.