OK here is my take on the 'grievance studies hoax.' I think it shows that generally poorly reasoned, largely unfalsifiable papers with apparently absurd conclusions can get published in top journals in critical-studies-type fields. Fair enough. But it does NOT show a special ...https://twitter.com/AreoMagazine/status/1047292046073950208 …
Some people were having a hard time following the thread or were getting cc'd into various sub-parts of it, so I thought it would be helpful to pin it at the top for the sake of convenience.
-
-
I found it confusing myself. Do you really stand by that still? I mean now that you've had some time to reflect.
-
By what particular thing are you asking about?
-
Your whole analysis. I could go point-by-point, but it's pretty shocking. Felt like a reaction to rather than consideration of.
-
I said at the end of the string that it was an initial offering, for the sake of more general discussion. So, in the original tweets I already indicated that I was saying something tentative and preliminary. If you have a particular concern I could try to speak to that
-
Do you think differently about the probe and what it shows now?
-
Since I gave about a dozen different thoughts in the string, it would really help me if you could ask a more specific question about some particular thing you want to know my current thinking about.
-
I don't understand why you seemed so eager to throw other subjects under the bus rather than to grapple directly with what we saw in grievance studies.
-
I took the thrust of your characterization of what you were showing in your hoax to be that there was a special rot in the fields you focused on. To support the claim of a special problem in field X, it is not enough show that, in field X, a small sample of journals of unknown ..
- 18 more replies
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.