And even if that criticism has perfectly reasonable answers, I would think critics negligent if they didn't at least ask the question.
-
-
I think I agree with that. It's possible that a field could be dreadful, but its peer review could still be halfway efficient at separating out papers which conform to its theology from those which don't.
-
Exactly. This isn't error or carelessness or a few bad papers getting in. This is a system working properly to promote the best examples of its epistemology & ethics. The peer-review process accurately reveals the state of field and which ideas are winning.
-
If peer-review is good in physics, the papers which get through will also be the ones which reveal the state of the field and which ideas are winning. This is how science advances although it too can and has gone wrong & might be now for all I know.
-
I of course agree that physics has a much much higher epistemological standard than critical theory. The question is, how to devise a test of that sort of claim, in a way that will satisfy the most people. At least, that was my original question.
-
I have no idea. But I do know that testing for weakness in living up to an ideal, evidence-based epistemological standard is a very different project to showing the existence of an experiential and irrational one.
-
I think your argument's pretty good, as usual, and yet, I think I still find it reasonable for people to at least ask about experimental controls in hoaxes such as these.
-
And I think I understand your argument that it's beside the point, because X is theology, and Y is science, and so they can't really be compared. (Maybe crudely put.)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
People can disagree about that and say that, in reality, the fields of grievance studies are still working on an evidence-based epistemology and on consistent liberal ethics and the peer-review which allowed our papers which all demonstrated the opposite of those was faulty.
-
We would point to the scholarship we cited in order to be able to make the arguments we did and show that these scholars are much respected in the fields and also show how Social Justice scholarship affects Social Justice activism and society more broadly. Not a peer-review blip.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Theoretically, if I ever got access to your systems, I would DEFINITELY set an incredibly inappropriate autocorrect against epistemology. Just saying.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
>I don't think our project shows a broken peer review system Yet it does.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.