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.
-
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @verybadwizards and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
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 @Intrinsic29 and
And we have tried very hard to point out the difference between hoaxes and going deeply into a field for a year and reflecting its ways back at it to learn about it, see how the system worked from within it and test certain propositions. We knew everyone would say 'hoax' tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and
We've given up on overcoming that now. But, in reality, a hoax is when you try to get a field to accept papers it wouldn't really want to accept. If you read our papers, you will see the ideas they present are absolutely legitimate within the fields & draw on existing scholarship
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
Yeah- I agree with you there. At that point, though, your papers are indistinguishable from the actual work. Which is why I said the actual work in those journals provides plenty of examples of silliness without you guys writing fakes. (Did you really not want to call it “hoax”?)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and
When you criticize the papers, you're often told that you don't understand the scholarship. If you get published 7 times, it's harder to tell you that you don't understand what you're criticizing.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and
Also, doesn't the fact that they were able to produce these "fakes" so easily tell us something about the fields in question? Do you think it would be possible for an outsider to produce a publishable work in psychology in a month?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_shawkr @Intrinsic29 and
Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be too hard if you were familiar with how to structure and present fake data. But these guys aren’t outsiders to academic writing, so it would be more like an economist hoaxing a psych journal.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @verybadwizards @Intrinsic29 and
But fake data is a different beast, no? Our opinions of the Pluckrose et al papers wouldn't change if their data were real. E.g, the Dog Park paper is either silly or it's not. It wouldn't become serious research if they had, in fact, sat far hours in dog parks checking genitals.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It wouldn't mean we were correct to conclude a rape culture in humans existed and that the solution was to train men like dogs, no.
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.