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
And I’m totally fine disagreeing with you on that! (I suspect you are fine too). I just wanted to go on record to clarify what the disagreement is about. (But hey, i also think lots of practical jokes border on unethical). The harder q to answer is whether they’re effective.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
Consistently? Do you think it is ever OK to go undercover to examine a system from within it and reveal a specific problem? I think we all draw a line somewhere. I wouldn't risk bad medical advice getting published. You'd prob be OK with revealing bad medical care?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
Sure, of course. But we’re just disagreeing about how to “reveal”, I think?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
Yes, but are we? Do you disagree that it is ever OK to misrepresent your identity and write papers that you don't believe to be good scholarship in order to show a problem in a field and how it works from start to finish?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @peez and
Or do you disagree that it was OK to do this to fields looking at race, gender and sexuality with a view to advancing social justice? Because you are sympathetic to the causes? That is most people's view & I get it. We have a bit about that in the Areo piece too.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and
But are these fields even receptive to "conventional" criticism? If good faith critiques are met with the "you just don't understand us" defense, maybe "wolf-in-sheep's-clothing" approach is warranted?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No. One of our papers addresses this.
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.