... 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 ...
-
Show this thread
-
... 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 likesShow this thread -
... 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 likesShow this thread -
... 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 likesShow this thread -
... 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 likesShow this thread -
... 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 likesShow this thread -
... Just some initial thoughts & fodder for conversation here ... I am genuinely curious what folks think!
14 replies 0 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
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 -
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 -
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
Yeah I think that's a really serious tension you're drawing attention to
-
-
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.
)