"We all know some papers in these fields are mad but couldn't this be addressed straightforwardly? Are hoaxes not a form of deception? Weren't the papers actually in keeping with the genre so not really a hoax (yes, that's the point)? Wasn't reviewers' time wasted?
-
-
Show this thread
-
Whereas before when we had tried to get reasonable academics to see that this was happening, they'd usually say "Oh, but some bad papers always get through. It's publish or perish. Most are still sound." Hence wanting to show the system is actually set up to be unsound.
Show this thread -
Now, the response has largely changed from " We do see the problem with the grievance studies approach but think you're exaggerating the structural embeddedness of it." to "We do see the problem with the grievance studies approach but don't think this is the way to address it."
Show this thread -
I think, in these cases, the reality is "We'll claim to see the problem with the grievance studies approach if pushed & to differentiate our own work from it but don't really want anything to be done about it due to having internalised some of it & misguided loyalty to colleagues
Show this thread -
I think the reality is that very many people just don't see an evidence-based epistemology and consistent ethics around social justice issues as being that important & are happy not to argue with "other ways of knowing" & "judging ppl by gender, race & sexuality is OK sometimes."
Show this thread -
Charitably, I'd say they perceive this as a daffy but relatively harmless alternative form of scholarship to empirical research & consistent ethics and so should be included as part of the productive diversity of ideas.
Show this thread -
If so, I'd agree it's daffy, disagree that it's harmless, agree that it is an alternative epistemology and ethical system that should be part of the academic conversation but that the productivity of ideological diversity comes from robust argument & criticism not accepting all.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@clairlemon whoa...did i misread these tweets? oh thats right, Helen has me muted. so much for Free Speech. Pluckrose is as thin skinned as@jordanbpeterson -- another set of commonalities. also Helen is completely clueless abt the complexities of the 2016 election.pic.twitter.com/2x8dmdwwMn
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.