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.
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 -
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.