(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.)
-
-
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 -
Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and
The project as it was took almost a year and was exposed very early due to inherent risks. I'm not sure it'd be wise to make it much more complicated to control for fields that are outside the thesis of the project.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @peez and
Quite. This would be a required control for a thesis that one field alone had problems. Not for looking at problems in one field. Would you really expect people looking at faulty knowledge production in science to also address radical constructivism in identity studies, Peez?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
I think that to claim evidentiary value from the publication rates (as you do), it requires a comparison rate. I -don’t- think that criticizing problems within a field has to be done with reference to another field. I hope that distinction is clear. I could write more if not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @Intrinsic29 and
What would that be evidence of? We are not making a comparative claim. If someone were to show that there was sexism in one workplace, for example, would we need to show it was worse than in another for there to be any value in showing it to exist?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Intrinsic29 and
Yes-You’d need to show (e.g.) that women were paid 7/hr for the same work compared to 9/hr for men. For the rate of 7/20 false papers generated by working x hrs/wk to provide evidence of a field’s sloppiness, you need to know the rate in a “good” field.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peez @HPluckrose and
It's not presented as evidence of the fields' sloppiness from what I gather. The fact that the papers were accepted, and the actual reviewers comments telling them what they needed to add or take away are presented as examples of what is required to publish in these fields.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, thank you. You put that much better. We are showing what is there and how it gets there.
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.