... and learn the rules of publication in many other fields; it seems like, to publish a paper in a top journal in medicine or psychology, you couldn't just whip some stuff up over the course of less than a year and get it through peer review in the most well-respected journals..
-
-
I think the core clue is in the odd mismatch when it comes to intent and scope. The piece argues it isn't targeted against a whole field, but then, authors RT headlines that it 'exposes the insanity of social sciences'. That reeks of bad faith and misdirection, to me.pic.twitter.com/d41nmBO0wi
-
Yeah, those "insanity etc." headlines and such ramped up rhetoric veers into bad faith territory from my perspective too
-
But that's a really, really important question right? If they're setting out to 'throw a bomb', as you say, what compels them to include statements that their intent is pure? If it's the inverse, why tolerate and re-share mis-characterisations of their intent?
-
Yeah I think that's a really serious tension you're drawing attention to
-
(also good thread
)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Honest question: how is the Chicago school of economics (esp. circa 1980) different from what these folks called grievance studies?
Ideological
Niche journals
Thin empirical results
Complex, magical theory
Lots of academic careers depend on it -
Really interesting question! I don't know enough about Chicago school economics to give an informed answer but I'd be curious to see what others think who know more about it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't disagree with anything you've written, and I appreciate the perspective. I can't speak for
@HPluckrose or anyone else, but it seems the difference b/w critical theory vs. metaphysics, science and your other examples is degree to which it gets forced into /1 -
.. cultural disputes and controversies, e.g. what words normal people are allowed to use, etc. Unless I've misunderstood they're trying to show the *foundation* of critical theory is built on sand, not just that foolishness gets published. Not so w/ your other examples.
-
That's an interesting point - I'll have to reflect on it some more. In any event, a genuine thank you to
@HPluckrose et al. for stimulating some big conversations that definitely need to happen! -
These are waters deeper than a biology major / philosophy minor like myself has any business swimming in tbh. Thanks again for putting your thoughts out there.
-
Another gap is the lack of discussion of Quine, Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Maxwell, Harding, Psillos or any philosophy of science in their justification piece. Popper - the quintessential rationalist - said, "As to [scientific] authority..I believe it is nil; it is all guesswork."
-
I'd feel the absence more had they been addressing scientific disciplines.
-
But they are claiming that scientific disciplines are superior because of things like data-gathering, statistical analysis, hypothesis testing, falsifying, and replicating results which, again, even the person ostensibly responsible for these things Popper, rejected as unreliable
-
I guess it's possible that taking on the whole edifice of human knowledge was outside the scope their project.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hello you can read it here: Thread by
@briandavidearp: "OK here is my take on the 'grievance studies hoax.' I think it shows that generally poorly reasoned, largely unfalsifiab […]" https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1047670903197372417.html … Enjoy :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
"Don't be mean to them! Go look at journals in other fields!" Maybe this is the best way to start having these conversations and to finally do away with those useless *studies* programs which discourage youth from entering skilled trades & ultimately set them up for failure
-
Cool rant though. You seem to be criticizing the review processes as a whole which is understandable, although you gave no examples from other fields of specific studies accepted blindly as truth. Replication is a big issue too, but no money in it. Hence we have these "studies"
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.