Just received this about the @verybadwizards podcast:
"They go at you pretty hard as a person. Not that I think you care, but I think you have kids? You might not want to listen to that one with your kids around. It’s the whole first segment of their most recent episode."
Weak.
-
-
It’s fair critism and if you guys want to criticize another field so harshly (which I tend to agree with you on) you should be open to being criticized yourselves. They’re well meaning academics like you. You should go back on it would be a great conversation
@ConceptualJames -
No. Sorry, you can't tell us it is fair to say we are badly motivated. We know better. We criticised a field - their ideas and how they worked - and can respect criticisms of our project on the same grounds. Motivational attacks are something else.
-
We expected this and we don't care much about VBW but it is alarming to see usually reasonable people saying that it's fair to respond with motivational attacks. We didn't do that.If we had, there would have been some kind of justice but we said those scholars intentions are good
-
It is really important to distinguish between ideas and people.
-
Besides - why is it unfair to question motivation? i think lots of us know your motivations were good, and they’re not criticizing in bad faith. Just think it would be cool for you guys to engage in conversation over it all.
-
One cannot prove their motivations, and motivations have nothing to do with the information gained or what it tells us. That is, it's something to talk about that isn't substance but can lead people to discredit the work.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hoaxes in other fields are perpetrated by insiders who care about integrity (eg SCIgen). Sciences are more willing to air dirty laundry & try to fix things. I've tried asking what's been to clean house since Sokal 1.0, result: indignation at the suggestion anything could be wrong
-
It's also been valuable experience for us to actually be grievance scholars for a year and get deep into the workings and requirements so we can critique it with officially recognised expertise in future. We were forever being told we don't understand it & haven't published.
-
Whatever else the hoax proved, it should have invalidated the vacuous, “Educate yourself”.
-
That's been a large part of it for me. To have the opportunity to research and write the stuff properly beginning to end. Revise, edit etc. Not just pick at it from the outside but do it from the inside. Really get into it.
-
I think these fields need to be asked to declare their red lines: what would make them reconsider their position/allegiance? Instead of being defensive. Then let others run the experiment again
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've actually listened to the episode and it was totally fine. There was nothing in it that could be called a personal attack.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I was a good girl and didn’t read the huffpost and buzzfeed comments about me. No regrets.
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.