... and so, the claim that, in 'critical studies' fields it is not *that* hard for a smart person to 'figure out the rules' of publication & get some shady/shoddy stuff accepted in top journals is not surprising, but it also doesn't convince me that there is a SPECIAL problem ...
-
-
... charitable/productive engagement happening all around; even when we really disagree w/ someone, there is often something valuable/right in their approach we can learn from (as Michael Hauskeller & I argue here https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18491/Binocularity%20in%20Bioethics.pdf?sequence=1 … reviewing Erik Parens on "binocularity").
Show this thread -
... Just some initial thoughts & fodder for conversation here ... I am genuinely curious what folks think!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For me, the point that other fields see a lot of bad literature is true, but they have a lot of quality and socially contributing literature as well. Where is it in critical theory? Most of it is broken epistemilogy and verbiage. I keep hearing of all this great work though...
-
The issue is not some bad papers getting through, but an entire culture of bad ideas, bad logic, self- referential methodology, and barriers to self-correction.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Get back to me when you can slip passage of Mein Kampf in one of the other fields you just mentioned, and you get praised for it. I'll take your comparisons seriously then.
-
There have been plenty - https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
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.