This is so unscholarly and anti-intellectual: a bunch of dudes talking to other dudes about a topic they know almost nothing about. Lolz.
-
-
@GodDoesnt's article certainly seemed to present itself as scholarship. It was certainly ABOUT scholarship. -
Hoax was aimed at scholarly publications. The denouement that it was satire was in Skeptic Magazine
-
By all means, think a different approach wld have been better & perhaps do it yourself.
-
The hoax was what it was & we can all talk about what it shows. Interesting how differently ppl read it.
-
This isn't a Rorschach test. There are standards of good scholarship, and this paper failed to meet them (a serious irony/hypocrisy.)
-
If you mean the hoax, I agree.That was the point. If u mean the piece in skeptic abt it, its appropriate
-
Ppl look at public institutions in all sorts of ways, using all sorts of approaches & mediums.
-
You don't have to like satire or popular pieces but why get so angry if others do?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The hoax was published. It's now triggered conversation as to what that means. Good.
-
The conversation has mostly been confirmation bias on one hand, and criticism of Lindsey's shoddy methods on the other. Hardly productive.
-
I find it so. You don't have to engage or find it funny
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Seems rather disingenuous to impugn a whole field for not being scholarly, while doing so in a non-scholarly fashion.
-
Sorry. I write & talk where I can. Conversation goes on all over.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.