This isn't one person who has misread my tweet in haste. It happens repeatedly and on all kinds of subjects. There's nothing to be gained from pointing out that anyone arguing that a certain thing needs to be achieved must know that it hasn't already been achieved.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The reasoning problem is clear on less ideologically & politically charged issues. We don't see: "We need to cure cancer" "You're wrong because cancer exists and kills people." There's a reason we don't see that. There are more layers going on here.
Show this thread -
Cancer is a straightforward bad and everyone who sees it this way and cares about it sees the same solution - to cure it. With things like grievance studies, feminism & religion, people who see a serious problem with them are divided on the solution - fix it or ban it.
Show this thread -
Those who want to fix a problem within scholarship/activism/a religion are very likely to be perceived by those who want to ban the scholarship/activism/religion or at least condemn it utterly as having failed to understand the seriousness of the problem.
Show this thread -
Therefore, they are likely to respond to "There is a serious problem happening right now that we must fix" with "No, because its a serious problem and happening right now. Let me explain the problem to you and how serious it is." Recognising this helps cut through the disconnect
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is no need for Gender Studies as a discipline. There is Sociology and Psychology. If you can't make your point in these, you don't have one. The reason G Studies was set apart is that they couldn't complete with reason, science. Now they compete based on greivance.
-
And biology. Sure you can call it biology/psychology/sociology of gender in society if you want. It doesn't matter much what you call it as long as gender is being studied rigorously through it.
-
With all genuine respect, Helen, writing some articles which have exposed the lunacies of identitarian scholarship does not in itself entitle you to decide how and why the vast topic of gender should be studied.
-
Nice job on the straw man.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am positive data science & AI will reshape the social studies landscape more towards quantification. They need to wake up to reality and believe in stats. After all, I don't see any field not influenced by statistical learning.
-
Agreed. And an important issue is whether folks who've never taken a statistics course in their lives (but have invested a couple of decades in critical theory) can readily retool. The departments might stay standing, but *many* members will need to be offered early retirement.
-
I’m a statistician-psychologists and I’m pretty positive. These sick disciplines really do make up a small fraction of the research that’s being done. The research my collaborators and I do is all large N, with careful methods, and cautious theory.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Completely agree you on making Grievance Studies evidence-based. However, the problem is subjectivism is the core of their intellectual "identity" and won't parted with lightly. It's what has enabled them to thrive up to this point (and get away with the drivel they produce).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
i suppose their issue is they believe that the opposition to those principles in the fields is irreparably woven into them, as in "they're too far gone for reform to be possible"
-
I agree. If there is a way of removing the cancer from these "disciplines" without killing them, then by all means. Knowledge should always be pursued. However, it seems like it has spread to every vestige of the "corpus."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I hope you succeed, but what causes these fields to fail is the philosophical and epistemological foundations they were built on. Introducing rigor would involve resetting the entire foundation. It's a complete rebuild. And the people who built the house would fight you.
-
And the system that condoned and enabled it. I have no solution but I recognize that this is a huge paradigm shift required to alter the current system.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is not new for Gender Studies . As far back as 1995 the problems were well known and are described in detail in the book "Professing Feminism" by Noretta Koertge & Daphne Patai.https://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Cautionary-Strange-Studies/dp/0465098274/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1539952208&sr=8-2&keywords=professing+feminism …
-
In case people dont remember. This was BEFORE the Alan Sokal hoaxed Soxial Text. Professing Feminism was published in September 1995 The Sokal Affair began in May 1996. Sokal did not invent his criticism. He read the book "Higher superstition" and wanted to see if it was true
End of conversation
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.