Both Helen and James have passionately argued for gender equality in a number of places. Your quote here suggested they're opposed to it.
-
-
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 -
-
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
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.
-
Those fields are also actually science. Grievance studies really aren't.
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.