18:34: "They're very motivated to vocally disagree with some of the views that people in these fields have. And those views themselves are substantive. The views about, say, gender equality. They might not be right, but they are views that you could argue about..."
-
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
Both Helen and James have passionately argued for gender equality in a number of places. Your quote here suggested they're opposed to it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
And it'd be one thing if this was just a misstatement since this is basically live, but it's mixed in with a bunch of unfair mind-reading about their supposedly smug, gleeful intentions to hurt people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
It was generally uncharitable, yes, but we expected this. I think you are more upset about it than we are because you didn't expect it of VBW. And also know us and our motivations, obviously.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
I think my disagreement just boils down to whether hoaxing is necessary, or if it is effective to hoax, and whether hoaxing is the form of criticism that I’d want to receive (i wouldn’t, but we talked to James about the value of mockery and we just have different views).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and
One point that would have been nice to hear brought up in relation to this is that the authors do argue against these ideas in ways that don't involve hoaxes rather often. This project is supplementary to that. Meant to address some common responses to that argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and
But I think an ethical position against insincere scholarship intended to be revealed with an argument that there's a problem with knowledge production in that field can be consistently & coherently held whether you consider this hoaxing or not. I'd disagree with it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.