this... sounds like peer review working as intended?https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1058091050261233664 …
then why are you holding it out as a hoax? you engaged with the literature and wrote real papers and you're shocked when they're published?
-
-
if you can be intentionally stupid while playing by the rules of a system, putting forth obvious nonsense by any external standard, and it then accepts and integrates your contributions, this implies the system doesn't have an obvious nonsense detector, whatever rules it may have
-
it's like, Sokal's Feminist Room. if you manipulate the symbols the same as a real human being, what does your internal experience matter?
-
what's to stop me from saying "oh, those linguistics papers I wrote were intentionally stupid, it was all a hoax, linguistics disproven"
-
it seems like the only part that's doing any work is the "obvious nonsense by any external standard". but the real papers are also that
-
they would have to be, because you have written real papers! so why bother? why not just point at the already-existing obvious nonsense?
-
if I think math is dumb, should I learn to write math papers and contribute to the literature? just post a blog mocking "imaginary numbers".
-
The difference is you can't get a math paper published by learning to imitate the way a mathematician talks
-
I mean, if you imitated it well enough you definitely could.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The correct term is “sting”, like when a policeman poses as a pedophile to catch real pedophiles. The fields themselves are the “hoax” here, of course, like a museum filled with fake exhibits. The sting exposes the hoax.
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.