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.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @01Undaunted
That's a bit of a slip from the original claim that getting it peer-review-published demonstrates something about the GS field.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Now, a few Twitter randos are sufficient to make that claim? Talk about anecdata.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @underverse @01Undaunted
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @01Undaunted
That's ... not how burden of proof works.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @underverse @01Undaunted
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @01Undaunted
But the "success" of the hoax requires that Cogent have some repute among the community allegedly "exposed." Not only does it not, but 1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The hoaxters tried and *failed* to get their piece into journal that is actually esteemed by GS academics. It's a huge self-own.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @underverse @01Undaunted
Well, I am writing something about this now. I'll take your opinion as well as other Twitter-users into account.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @01Undaunted
@KetanJ0 has the best take I've seen. https://ketanjoshi.co/2017/05/20/the-engine-of-irrationality-inside-the-rationalists/ …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm responding to that. Now, I have to go.
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.