-
-
You aren't fixing it at all. That's my problem.
-
Before anything can be fixed, you first have to identify the problem.
-
It just so happens that pointing out the problem takes very little effort and gets you lots of attention. Also, we've all known this is an issue since at least 2015.
-
It looks to have taken quite a lot of effort. What happened in 2005? What has been done to address the problem? Why be upset about somebody pointing out a problem if you already knew it existed?
-
*2015
-
2015 is generally agreed to be the point at which there were many headlines about odd behavior on campuses across the US and other countries, such that it was hard to ignore. It was also when
@RealPeerReview started up, IIRC. -
Ok, useful info. Thanks. I’d say I could see the problem I was an undergrad in the early 90s
-
Oh yes, the 'Theoy' was written in the 70s/80s. For whatever reason, it wasn't until 2010's that we started seeing especially outlandish results. That in and of itself would be interesting to study. I suspect demographic shifts play a role.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Some people see the rot as just too great to fix. But I've seen some good scholarship in these fields. Possibly many programs will fail in the process of rooting out the rot & enhancing rigor, but there R good reasons to study related questions.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Weird. The whole point was not the subject matter but the lack of the scientific method. Follow the evidence and stop publishing babble. I love the Grievance studies hoax, esp if they fix it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My impression was that after Sokal, despite all the fury and gnashing of teeth, the postmodernists backed off a bit of saying silly things about the physical sciences. No one likes to look ridiculous, even if they claim that some word salad or another vindicates them in the end
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sorry. I think the endeavor is corrupted by advocacy. The fact is, there is no reason a historian won't study women's history or a biologist study homosexuality. Peer reviewed for method & context. There is no need for separate advocacy departments, except to dodge peer review.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm of the opinion that in order to fix it, you HAVE to burn the present form down. You can't use maggot- and fungi-infested wood as a support beam, after all. It's not structurally sound anymore.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So, yes, burn it down!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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.