Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
HPluckrose's profile
Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose
@HPluckrose

Tweets

Helen Pluckrose

@HPluckrose

Editor @AreoMagazine Secular, liberal humanist. Mother. Doglover. Writing book about epistemology & ethics on the academic left Helen.pluckrose@areomagazine.com

London.
areomagazine.com/author/hpluckr…
Joined August 2011

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Kevin‏ @Intrinsic29 Oct 24
      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
    2. Kevin‏ @Intrinsic29 Oct 24
      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
    3. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
      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
    4. David Pizarro‏ @peez Oct 24
      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
    5. Kevin‏ @Intrinsic29 Oct 24
      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
    6. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
      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
    7. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
      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
    8. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
      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
    9. David Pizarro‏ @peez Oct 24
      Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

      (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.)

      2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
    10. Kevin‏ @Intrinsic29 Oct 24
      Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and

      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.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
      Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and

      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.

      4:53 PM - 24 Oct 2018
      • 1 Like
      • Kevin
      3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        5. David Pizarro‏ @peez Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          But those people generally don’t make their criticisms by way of fabricated papers

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and

          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.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        7. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. David Pizarro‏ @peez Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          If you can a priori determine with such ease which fields have problems with knowledge production, then of course it’s a waste of time. But wouldn’t embedding yourself into social psych and getting published there reveal problems with our knowledge production?

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Kevin‏ @Intrinsic29 Oct 24
          Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and

          The project as it was took almost a year and was exposed very early due to inherent risks. I'm not sure it'd be wise to make it much more complicated to control for fields that are outside the thesis of the project.

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and

          Quite. This would be a required control for a thesis that one field alone had problems. Not for looking at problems in one field. Would you really expect people looking at faulty knowledge production in science to also address radical constructivism in identity studies, Peez?

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        5. David Pizarro‏ @peez Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          I think that to claim evidentiary value from the publication rates (as you do), it requires a comparison rate. I -don’t- think that criticizing problems within a field has to be done with reference to another field. I hope that distinction is clear. I could write more if not.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and

          What would that be evidence of? We are not making a comparative claim. If someone were to show that there was sexism in one workplace, for example, would we need to show it was worse than in another for there to be any value in showing it to exist?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. David Pizarro‏ @peez Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          Yes-You’d need to show (e.g.) that women were paid 7/hr for the same work compared to 9/hr for men. For the rate of 7/20 false papers generated by working x hrs/wk to provide evidence of a field’s sloppiness, you need to know the rate in a “good” field.

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        8. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and

          OK, maybe that was a bad example because sexism does involve a comparison although I did say with another workplace. Make it showing evidence that children were beaten in a care home. Would we need to show it was not more than another home or elderly people.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        9. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and

          Also, we are not claiming sloppiness in one field or that it is worse than in other fields. *Please* read the Areo piece. We think the peer review system works just fine. We are showing what is there, what we drew on, how we were directed,what we got in etc.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        10. 2 more replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Paul Roundy‏ @PaulRoundy1 Oct 24
          Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and

          Good luck doing that in physics, chemistry, biology, atmospheric science, environmental engineering, etc. . . Much of the difference may be that these fields are deeper than their jargon.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Kevin‏ @Intrinsic29 Oct 24
          Replying to @PaulRoundy1 @HPluckrose and

          Those fields are also actually science. Grievance studies really aren't.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2018 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info