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.
-
-
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.
-
It's generally known as whattaboutism and is an attempt to deflect. Why are you addressing this instead of that? Why criticise Islam and not also Christianity? Why criticise subsections of the humanities instead of science? Why look at where women are disadvantaged & not men?
-
Again, it depends on the claim. If you are specifically making the claim that X is worse than Y, then yes, you do need to look at both X and Y.
-
You can of course take the position that *any* exposure of bad peer-review is worth doing, but if you are specifically making the claim that the standards of peer review in field X is worse than that in other fields, then it's natural for people to ask whether you've tested both.
-
If we had specifically made that claim, of course it would be valid to criticise us if we had not supported it. As we actually made no such claim but specified what we were looking at and why - because we are liberals who care about epistemology & consistent ethics - it is not
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Other people are claiming we did not show the whole of the humanities or all scholarship around gender, race and sexuality to be terrible and that's good because we don't think they are and said so explicitly.
-
Well, I see all this stuff about 'grievance studies'. Are you making the claim that your hoax disproves certain subfields, which could be said to involve grievance of some sort? I'm not clear.
-
We are arguing that scholarship which draws on the postmodern premise that knowledge is socially constructed in the service of power & perpetuated via language - radical skepticism and cultural constructivism - exists in identity studies & produces irrational & unethical results.
-
We called this 'grievance studies' because it focuses on these systems of power from a Social Justice perspective which seeks to interpret all sorts of things as evidence of these oppressive power structures. We did particularly well finding evidence of problematic masculinity.
-
OK, I'm going to take a break from this conversation, cos it's going on so long, and debating anything on Twitter is *hard*. But, I hope there aren't any bad feelings.
-
Yes, I will gladly leave it here. No bad feelings. There have been resigned and sad ones where you are concerned for some time. I no longer have any wish to try to remedy them tho. You are who you are and I accept that.
-
Ah, so just a few bad feelings.
End of conversation
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.