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 …
-
Show this thread
-
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @christianjbdev
The Vox piece deploys a "moral contamination" argument, in asserting that, because Tucker appreciates the hoax, the project is tainted. That's poor reasoning. Also, the main contention of the project doesn't depend on acceptance rate *relative to* more substantial fields. /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BeatConfusion @christianjbdev
The results speak for themselves. What they show is that the editors of leading "grievance study" journals are in some cases sufficiently interested in ludicrous topics & propositions to send these papers out for review and even publish them. That they are committed to BS. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BeatConfusion
I don't think the 'results speak fo themselves', and I don't think it unfair for a journalist to talk about political motivations; especially when one of the hoaxers appears to have been buddies with Stefan Molyneaux.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev @BeatConfusion
People can always speculate about other's motivations & this very often reveals their own. However, even if we are sectretly Nazis, this would not have caused the awful scholarship we relied on to exist, got our papers accepted or made reviewers direct us as they did
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BeatConfusion
OK, but I still don't think it was improper for the journalist to point out that one of your fellow hoaxers was making videos with Stefan Molyneaux.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev @BeatConfusion
Journalists can point out whatever they want. Other people will have to decide whether the fact that someone who did a thing has previously worked with someone who turned out to be a certifiable loon invalidates or compromises the thing that they did.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'd suggest it doesn't unless it can be shown that the video can have had any impact on, say, feminist epistemology existing and being usable it to justify our papers & make them acceptable & how reviewers directed us.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BeatConfusion
I agree that, strictly speaking, the validity of your argument doesn't depend on anything but the argument itself. But, a journalist will also be interested in motivation and context. And for that, I think it's fair to look at what's in the public record.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course. Many people have pointed out that I have spent years criticising feminism as a context.
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.