OK, so you're not claiming that the standards of peer review in 'grievance studies' is any worse than that in physics say. I stand corrected.
-
-
Replying to @christianjbdev
I have no idea whether it is or not or even whether they could be compared because dishonest or erroneous peer review in a field which upholds an evidence-based epistemology would look totally different to explicit rejection of an evidence-based epistemology.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I can see that if a subfield is essentially printing fairy stories, then it's hard to compare its peer review to that of physics.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Peer-review systems are almost beside the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You have to forgive me for being confused then, by what you're trying to prove!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Peer review systems are a way to test because they show the epistemology & ethics of a field - of the peers. I don't think our project shows a broken peer review system. I think it works perfectly according to the epistemology & ethics of the subfields. Those are the problem.
5 replies 1 retweet 37 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev @HPluckrose
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.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 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.