I just listened again and @peez also explicitly claims that they're motivated to vocally disagree with some of the views that people in these fields have and he gives an example of "gender equality" implying that these authors are opposed to gender equality. That was insane.
-
-
(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.
-
But those people generally don’t make their criticisms by way of fabricated papers
-
It would have to be a hypothetical in which they did do that, yes. Worked within the field reproducing stuff that is already there while not believing it to be good. I'd have to say I doubt anyone would consider it suspicious they only focused on their own field's problems.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The answer to this, apart from the very reasonable one that we are not scientists but people who focus in one way or another on epistemology and ethics, is that this could result in people dying if there were any delay in retraction.
-
Obv, wouldn't be great if anyone took our advice to train men like dogs, stick things up your butt to get less transphobic & more feminist and make white students sit on the floor in chains but it wouldn't kill anyone, & this stuff is out there already & needs to be shown.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd guess most of that type of weakness in most fields is local to individual studies, though I can point to a few extreme cases in the last century when such errors dominated for decades. Surely more will come out. But the system to find them is working in fits and starts.
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.