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.
-
-
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 @HPluckrose
And even if that criticism has perfectly reasonable answers, I would think critics negligent if they didn't at least ask the question.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Yes, because then you have introduced a claim you need to support. But if someone is dedicating their life to studying Islamism, they don't need to also study Christian dominionism and they are quite likely to still be very glad that someone else is doing so.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This usually indicates a personal investment in a topic but not bias if that individual is not claiming no other problems to exist. I care abt humanities/ feminism/epistemology coz I wanted to be an empirical feminist historian. Great if someone else investigates science.
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.