I don't think the existence of absurd concept creep on the SJW left is a reason for its critics to adopt the same tactics.
-
-
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @NeilKenny0 and
Lee Jussim Retweeted Lee Jussim
Completely fair. Note that I did back off a bit there. However, I also had a hidden agenda, revealed here:https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1124469793124491264 …
Lee Jussim added,
Lee Jussim @PsychRabbleReplying to @NeilKenny0 @C_Kavanagh and 8 othersWell done. That was a litmus test, being that IDK you. Its like, how could it be otherwise, logically (so, my implicit q was: "Are you a radical SJ nutcase or just someone who disagrees w/me reasonably and rationally?"). Definitely the latter. Welcome.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @NeilKenny0 and
Point taken! Re Noah Carl, I'm trying to look into this (while ostensibly on vacation in Munich, lol). I don't think "guilt by association" is *always* invalid -- e.g. if someone contributes to a Holocaust denial journal, it's a fair thing to hold against them, IMO.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @PsychRabble and
I'm not saying that any of Carl's associations are on that level, btw. Just speaking to the general principle.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @PsychRabble and
The Open Psych thing looks kinda dodgy to me in that it looks like Noah Carl & Emil Kierkegaard were peer-reviewing each other's papers a lot. But I'm sure you're right there's a lot of dodgy stuff in psych in general.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @NeilKenny0 and
The issue there, to me, is more this: Did Carl present the OpenPsych stuff AS peer reviewed? Then that would be deceptive and cross my ethical lines. But if not? We academics pub stuff in nonpeer reviewed outlets all the time.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @NeilKenny0 and
That's a good question. I think the journal describes itself as having "open peer review"?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @PsychRabble and
Carl's use of the "Religion of Peace" website as a source of info on Islamist terrorism does raise questions IMO -- the site is known to be fairly loose with definitions of "terrorism."
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @NeilKenny0 and
That is also fair. If there is a good argument to be made that their data is fundamentally inaccurate or distorted, that would, to me, make a difference. I have not seen that argument anywhere.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @CathyYoung63 and
On the journal. Its definitely not a regular peer reviewed journal. It does not matter to me how it describes itself. It does matter how Carl presented it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It is peer reviewed in much the usual fashion. The open part just means the review process is public, in line with open science movement reforms. In this case, it also makes critics look very stupid when they claim stuff is not reviewed when these are literally in public view.
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @PsychRabble and
So you're one of the folks condemned in the New Statesman piece, Emil? Kudos for engaging. "Half of Carl’s OpenPsych reviews have come from just two people, one of whom, Emil Kirkegaard, has no educational qualifications beyond a Bachelor’s degree in linguistics..."
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.