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).
-
-
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
(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 -
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 -
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
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
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.
-
-
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 -
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
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.