I misread this in haste when I responded yesterday. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1054886048625541120 … It is not the empirical & generally reasonable scholars who are responding in deranged & vitriolic ways. Those opposed tend to respond by ignoring our point & referring to a number of extraneous factorshttps://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1054883200525230081 …
-
Show this thread
-
"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?
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow 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.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow 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."
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Kind reminder that this has been my response from day one (AFAICT I wasn't the only one).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.