Both Helen and James have passionately argued for gender equality in a number of places. Your quote here suggested they're opposed to it.
-
-
Not at all- i think (and have said many times) that a lot of the work in those areas is ridiculous. What gets me is that it seems that a lot of folks think that disagreeing about the value of your method has to mean I am defending the work you criticize. But it doesn’t.
-
No, it is quite possible to say, as even the Wall Street Journal did, that they thought this approach unethical but that it does point to a serious problem in the field.
-
But “real peer review” points the problem pretty effectively.
-
They do a lot of good highlighting the problem, yes. It doesn't mean the rest of shouldn't address it too and in a number of ways. People get the madness from RPR. I hope to show how it works so they know how to counter it.
-
This is why I have written a series of essays breaking down the key ideas underlying the problem & how it evolved & spread & how it manifests in society & am also writing a book to do this in more detail. We also wanted to participate in it from the inside to show how it works.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Just browsing some of the real articles is painful. But I see you believe your methods are truly revealing something new, that others would never had seen (this is where Paul was in some agreement w you). I just think it galvanizes those who already agree, but changes no minds.
-
I mean they objectively reveal how the entire process of getting a paper published works. That can't be denied. It may not sway many or any people are committed but I see no reason to think it wouldn't sway fence sitters or people relatively new to the problem.
-
I think we already see some benefits where more people are openly saying they already knew there were a load of problems and distancing themselves from it.
-
Yeah a lot of the utility I've seen already is in people close to the fields publicly announcing "everyone already knew there was a bunch of bullshit in these fields!" That by itself is great for people who didn't already know that to see imo.
-
Yes! I see a shift. Much defensiveness coming out in different ways but much of it is about addressing the problem. Even Mother Jones came out in favour and Buzzfeed was balanced. If we have made this just a little more untenable and worthy of embarrassment it was worthwhile.
-
Also, some productive conversations have happened with sincere right-wingers along the lines of "OK, you're admitting to problems on your side. We can also say we have some loons making false claims and being unethical." I'm intrigued to see where that will go.
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.