May be difficult, but otherwise, people are just going to argue forever over whether the study actually proved anything.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @christianjbdev
It showed that we could draw on an awful lot of terrible scholarship to justify terrible claims and that reviewers would direct this to further awfulness.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm not doubting you're convinced by your own study.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev @HPluckrose
The point I'm making, and which you're responding to, is that a good way to convince others is to design an experimental protocol in collaboration with the ones making the claims, and where everyone agrees to abide by the results, beforehand.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @christianjbdev
However, I'm not sure how that would work here because if everyone agreed that its a problem that journals publish the things they do, they wouldn't be able to do that. They do it because people don't agree that this is a problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
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.
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.