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.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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 @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.