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.
-
-
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 -
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
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
Yes, I encourage people in social science to do so if they see a problem. I don't think they'd necessarily have to compare the problems they see with those in other fields to do this either.
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.