Good.
-
-
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
-
OK, so you're not claiming that the standards of peer review in 'grievance studies' is any worse than that in physics say. I stand corrected.
-
I have no idea whether it is or not or even whether they could be compared because dishonest or erroneous peer review in a field which upholds an evidence-based epistemology would look totally different to explicit rejection of an evidence-based epistemology.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Some people have been looking at whether peer review in medical journals has allowed flawed info abt fat to be published to support the sugar industry. I think it is legitimate that they focus on that specifically & don't also look at whether PoMo is infecting gender studies.
-
Well, it depends on whether you're claiming that the peer review standards of some sub-fields is lagging behind that of other more established fields. Are you?
-
No and I'm not sure how we'd go about comparing the problem of a peer review system, say, cheating in a field which claims to uphold an evidence-based epistemology for finanical gain with a peer review system rejecting an evidence-based epistemology for ideological gain.
-
Even if we found a way to compare these and quantify a percentage of published scholarship which had fallen foul of these problems, we'd immediately need to separate them again to address them.
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.