The irony is in holding the hoax to higher standards than the discipline.
-
-
It's one more particularly satisfying bit of evidence in line with what we've all been seeing for quite a few years now.
-
Sure. And my point is that the hoax is classed as "satisfying" rather than being critiqued for logical holes. That's a serious problem.
-
Not going here again. You're seeing it as a bigger claim than it is. It is what it is. The limitations have been spelled out by authors.
-
As I highlight in my post, that's not how it was framed by prominent figures. That's also important. Why did they contradict the authors?
-
You are missing the bigger picture! Just more confirming evidence. I'm not going here again. Already tried to explain this.
-
But it's not confirming evidence for your hypothesis (gender studies is bad). It's confirming evidence for 'bad journals publish anything'.
-
LOL. YES! That was exactly their conclusion. :)
-
No, their main conclusion was 'journals in gender studies publish anything'. But the first, reputable gender studies journal rejected it.
- 19 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
you beat me to it. :)
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.