That's true of every academic field I've encountered
-
-
Replying to @redlianak @GodDoesnt and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @redlianak and
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. :(
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BlackGriffin0 @HPluckrose and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @redlianak @BlackGriffin0 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BlackGriffin0 and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @redlianak @BlackGriffin0 and
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
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BlackGriffin0 and
It took twelve years for them to retract the article.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @redlianak @BlackGriffin0 and
Then blame the Lancet. We wouldn't be criticising feminist theory if one of their jounals refused to retract a bad study whilst the majority of the field made the problem clear & carried out & published &made accessible many disconfirming studies.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BlackGriffin0 and
That's kind of my point: individual errors shouldn't negate the GOOD scholarship that does exist. Certain fields of study have greater problems than others. Let's fix them. Not declare them irrelevant.
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Not declaring them irrelevant. Wanting to do them properly. Pointing out the problem in the field preventing this.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @redlianak and
If you think we're mistaken and the majority of the field of feminist theory is rigorous and evidence-based and managing to publish much work refuting the loons, please do write something showing all this. Camille Paglia is very unpopular in the field.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @redlianak and
The problem may be one of who the gatekeepers are - a problem in many academic disciplines, for sure, but acute here - how often are articles peer-reviewed by those looking for rigorous, evidence-based arguments, rather than simply arriving at the ‘right’ conclusion?
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
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.