But the erroneously-named peer-reviewed Cogent Social Science journal fell for it. Is anyone surprised? http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/ …
Ask the people arguing that Cogent was right to take it because it makes an excellent argument even if the authors don't believe in it.
-
-
That's a bit of a slip from the original claim that getting it peer-review-published demonstrates something about the GS field.
-
Now, a few Twitter randos are sufficient to make that claim? Talk about anecdata.
-
You're also a Twitter rando. Look at the comments under some of the pieces about it. Furious debate going on by academics & non-academics.
-
That's ... not how burden of proof works.
-
What do I need to prove? Have I made any claims about whether Cogent is reputable or not? Obv, I don't think it is.
-
But the "success" of the hoax requires that Cogent have some repute among the community allegedly "exposed." Not only does it not, but 1/
-
I'm researching it now. It's well indexed and Taylor and Francis are proud of it. It doesn't seem much different to the others.
-
So it's of no consequence to you that it is universally denounced by academics?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Cite?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.