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.
-
-
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 -
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.