Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
briandavidearp's profile
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
@briandavidearp

Tweets

Brian D. Earp

@briandavidearp

@Yale; @UniofOxford; @hastingscenter; @TheAtlantic - psychology, philosophy of science, bioethics, tech, politics, gender and sexuality, etc. RT ≠ endorsement.

oxford.academia.edu/BrianEarp
Joined July 2011

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... 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..

      2 replies 1 retweet 31 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... so, the fact that these Sokal-style hoaxes tend to be more or less easy to pull off ON 'critical studies' type journals by smart people from totally unrelated fields, whereas, I'm not aware of cases (and suspect it would be harder) to pull off a hoax in the opposite direction

      7 replies 3 retweets 29 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... may be evidence of asymmetry in something like 'average' epistemological rigor. But there seems a relatively narrow ideological motivation to the authors' hoax in picking out critical studies for condemnation (without charitably engaging w/ what is good in its approaches)

      3 replies 2 retweets 38 likes
      Show this thread
    4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... all of that said, I reiterate, I *do* see a lot of sloppy theorizing that is highly ideologically motivated and not interested in generating falsifiable theories in the types of journals the hoax authors thought to target, and I *do* agree that the cause of social justice ...

      2 replies 5 retweets 30 likes
      Show this thread
    5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... is threatened and undermined when orthodoxies form and you aren't allowed to question them (as I argue here: https://quillette.com/2016/07/02/in-praise-of-ambivalence-young-feminism-gender-identity-and-free-speech/ …); the hoax authors are right that to fight true injustice you need the BEST ideas, theories, data, etc., and that requires getting outside ...

      1 reply 3 retweets 33 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... your bubble where you just talk to other social justice researchers: if the goal is to help the marginalized and oppressed etc., they will NOT be helped in the long run by dogmas protected by blasphemy laws saying you can't critique them. But I think the hoax authors, too,

      1 reply 3 retweets 33 likes
      Show this thread
    7. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... could do a better job of approaching those fields/journals in a more charitable way trying to see what is right/good/valuable/productive about them, in the spirit of improving them AND learning from them, rather than the "burn it down" kind of "gotcha" approach they took ...

      3 replies 1 retweet 26 likes
      Show this thread
    8. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... Such bomb-throwing tactics to critiquing other fields may, in the long run, turn out to work/be valuable in causing improvement in the general level of rigor/quality (like those 'methodological terrorists' in psychology!); but might also create animus & further divisions ...

      1 reply 1 retweet 23 likes
      Show this thread
    9. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... I guess we will see! @NAChristakis predicts that all will come of this is greater effort on part of journals to verify author identities, rather than any kind of soul-searching and improvement. I would like to just see some soul-searching and expanded perspective taking & ...

      3 replies 0 retweets 36 likes
      Show this thread
    10. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... 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").

      1 reply 2 retweets 24 likes
      Show this thread
      Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3

      ... Just some initial thoughts & fodder for conversation here ... I am genuinely curious what folks think!

      7:34 PM - 3 Oct 2018 from New Haven, CT
      • 27 Likes
      • seb Mark Shively Where the Tweets have no name Thomas Adamson Jules Gutierrez betty ✿ Yaniv/Laurelv Stephanie Lahey Carl Watts
      14 replies 0 retweets 27 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Ketan Joshi‏Verified account @KetanJ0 Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          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

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3
          Replying to @KetanJ0

          Yeah, those "insanity etc." headlines and such ramped up rhetoric veers into bad faith territory from my perspective too

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        4. Ketan Joshi‏Verified account @KetanJ0 Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          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?

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3
          Replying to @KetanJ0

          Yeah I think that's a really serious tension you're drawing attention to

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Ketan Joshi‏Verified account @KetanJ0 Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          (also good thread 🖖🏽)

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Matt Moehr‏ @mattmoehr Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3
          Replying to @mattmoehr

          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

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Nick Guest‏ @NickGuest6 Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Nick Guest‏ @NickGuest6 Oct 3
          Replying to @NickGuest6 @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

          .. 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.

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 3
          Replying to @NickGuest6 @HPluckrose

          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!

          1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
        5. Nick Guest‏ @NickGuest6 Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        6. Where the Tweets have no name‏ @andrewthesmart Oct 3
          Replying to @NickGuest6 @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

          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."

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        7. Nick Guest‏ @NickGuest6 Oct 3
          Replying to @andrewthesmart @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

          I'd feel the absence more had they been addressing scientific disciplines.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        8. Where the Tweets have no name‏ @andrewthesmart Oct 3
          Replying to @NickGuest6 @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        9. Nick Guest‏ @NickGuest6 Oct 3
          Replying to @andrewthesmart @briandavidearp @HPluckrose

          I guess it's possible that taking on the whole edifice of human knowledge was outside the scope their project.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        10. 2 more replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Jesse Singal‏Verified account @jessesingal Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          @threadreaderapp unroll plz

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Thread Reader App‏ @threadreaderapp Oct 3
          Replying to @jessesingal

          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 :) 🤖

          0 replies 2 retweets 3 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. seb‏ @SebsShoes Oct 3
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          "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

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. seb‏ @SebsShoes Oct 3
          Replying to @SebsShoes @briandavidearp

          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"

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2018 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info