didn't say you were, my man, I said the hoax was. I'm cool with systemic and constructive criticism of a field made up of detailed examples
-
-
They say in that quote that their suspicion was justified "on the evidence". If they're referring to other evidence, where is it cited?pic.twitter.com/VapPW5ZELU
-
The hypothesis was upheld. (The hundreds of indistinguishable sincere papers getting passed peer review all the time make this unsurprising)
-
Okay, look. Supporting a hypothesis is hard. A parody account + a hoax in a pay-nothing-to-publish journal are not enough.
-
No-one is suggesting it is. You need a mass of evidence & analysis by very many ppl. Individuals contribute small pieces. Step back.
-
You'll always have to read more widely than 1 study, 1 experiment, 1 argument. This doesn't mean its a problem to do 1 study, 1 experiment..
-
My blog was about one specific "study", and the conclusions about an entire field that were drawn from it by proponents.
-
I think you're missing the bigger picture. It doesn't stand alone. If it did & all other evidence was that GS publishing was rigorous &sound
-
& based on empirical evidence & reasoned argument, it would disappear. Its part of a larger & growing concern.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The hoax fails. It's not even a GS journal; nor any form of PoMo or left wing. They publish whatever one of their 150 editors approves.
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.