That's true of every academic field I've encountered
-
-
-
Not quite but it's getting there. Medieval studies held out but is succumbing now. I did a survey of female academics recently where some biologists spoke of their difficulty saying that biological gender differences are real.
-
The underlying trouble is that there is a need to gate-keep on credibility, if only to keep the signal-to-noise of the literature high. Those credibility mechanisms are being twisted to gate-keep based on acceptance of an orthodoxy. Wish I knew of a solution. :(
-
The peer-review process is being corrupted and bypassed in equal measure. But that started at least with Marshall McLuhan. It's not new. Jesus look at vaccines and autism. That was a major fubar at the Lancet.
-
Yes & how do we know it was wrong? Because the field responded and said so. Pulled it apart. Refuted it comprehensively on many fronts. Did many, many more studies to prove it.
-
In fairness, it took years. Same thing happens in social studies. Pendulum swings, it swings back. The path to truth is not a straight line. I say this as someone who has been thoroughly bludgeoned by that pendulum.
-
No, it didn't. You're not seriously claiming that vaccines causing autism was accepted by relevant scientists for years? I know it wasn't. I had a baby and was bombarded with info from the NHS refuting it
-
It took twelve years for them to retract the article.
- 5 more replies
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.