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.
-
-
Replying to @christianjbdev @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
I'm not sure it is because I don't think it is possible for anyone to have the knowledge needed to test knowledge production in all fields all at once. Metastudies often bring specific studies together and analyse them together.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
Possibly, we could have put out a secret call and formed a huge team including people from every discipline and co-ordinated a project which addressed knowledge production & peer review in all of them all at once. But I don't think it is a problem not to do that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
Perhaps you can think of an area of weakness in peer review in physics? If people tested it, would it a reasonable criticism to complain they didn't also address postmodernism in gender studies, replication in social sciences, pressure from corporations in medical science?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think if there were an expectation that people cannot investigate problems in their own field without knowing about & also addressing problems in every other field at the same time, it would make it nearly impossible to ever address any problems.
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.