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)
-
-
Because I think it can show the problem from start to finish with the process in a way that other forms of criticism cannot. It can show the research sources - the key texts already in the field - the review process & how authors are directed, the publication process etc
-
Obviously other ethical problems arise in other fields. Someone asked us why we didn't go for a problem in medical publishing in relation to bad data enabling dead tracheas to be transplanted into patients endangering their lives.
-
(Btw, I saw you asked about this earlier. When i referred to “controls” i simply meant trying the same exercise in another field, one you respect, and comparing the publication rates to see if they are less likely to accept these anthropological Trojans.)
-
I think this is a common red herring response to the project. The project isn't explicitly claiming or hypothesizing that other fields are better. Other fields have problems too and I don't think this project is making any comment on that.
-
No, absolutely not. If you mean why not write bad papers for fields with other problems with knowledge production, I don't even know how you'd go about comparing them even if we had the expertise necessary to produce exemplary papers in other fields.
-
Some kind of metastudy could compare replication problems in social science, radical constructivism in identity studies,financially motivated disparagement of fat for the sugar industry &some controversy over knowledge production in the area of cold-fusion that I don't understand
-
But I'm not sure how useful that would be. You'd only have to separate them again to deal with them. I don't think competition is useful anyway. It's not like we only need address the worse problems. People can still care about what is happening in their own field.
-
And I think it is a red herring. People don't ask those who are working on proving the claim that bad studies have come out about the harmfulness of fat in the pay of the sugar industry why they didn't do a control with radical constructivism in identity studies.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And I’m totally fine disagreeing with you on that! (I suspect you are fine too). I just wanted to go on record to clarify what the disagreement is about. (But hey, i also think lots of practical jokes border on unethical). The harder q to answer is whether they’re effective.
-
Consistently? Do you think it is ever OK to go undercover to examine a system from within it and reveal a specific problem? I think we all draw a line somewhere. I wouldn't risk bad medical advice getting published. You'd prob be OK with revealing bad medical care?
-
Sure, of course. But we’re just disagreeing about how to “reveal”, I think?
-
Yes, but are we? Do you disagree that it is ever OK to misrepresent your identity and write papers that you don't believe to be good scholarship in order to show a problem in a field and how it works from start to finish?
-
Or do you disagree that it was OK to do this to fields looking at race, gender and sexuality with a view to advancing social justice? Because you are sympathetic to the causes? That is most people's view & I get it. We have a bit about that in the Areo piece too.
-
Not at all- i think (and have said many times) that a lot of the work in those areas is ridiculous. What gets me is that it seems that a lot of folks think that disagreeing about the value of your method has to mean I am defending the work you criticize. But it doesn’t.
-
No, it is quite possible to say, as even the Wall Street Journal did, that they thought this approach unethical but that it does point to a serious problem in the field.
-
But “real peer review” points the problem pretty effectively.
- 2 more replies
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.