... 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 ...
-
-
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.
-
But they are arguing that certain types of knowledge should not be included in the edifice because they faked some papers: all I'm saying is the problems with human knowledge are far deeper and well discussed in their own field of philosophy. To me the hoax is kind of meh.
-
To say that there are problems in all disciples is not to say they're of the same type or scale. After reading some parts of the papers, I can't say that they're "meh" or on par with a disagreement about P-values. But I take your point.
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.