I'd like to point out a factual error at the beginning of this week's @verybadwizards podcast. The presenters, esp. @tamler, stated that @HPluckrose & @ConceptualJames have never voiced any serious critiques of pomo-influenced fields, only hoaxes. (Thread)
-
-
We've given up on overcoming that now. But, in reality, a hoax is when you try to get a field to accept papers it wouldn't really want to accept. If you read our papers, you will see the ideas they present are absolutely legitimate within the fields & draw on existing scholarship
-
Yeah- I agree with you there. At that point, though, your papers are indistinguishable from the actual work. Which is why I said the actual work in those journals provides plenty of examples of silliness without you guys writing fakes. (Did you really not want to call it “hoax”?)
-
No. Please read the Areo piece. We say it is best understood as a reflexive ethnography. Going inside a system and reflecting its ways back at it. To properly understand it. To become experts in it. And turn out exemplary papers addressing our main concerns.
-
And yes, we really didn't want to call it a hoax. We call that "the "H' word" and asked people not to use it. This is not a series a jokes. We asked the Wall Street Journal not to call it that repeatedly but we had no say over that ultimately.
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.