Do you think differently about the probe and what it shows now?
-
-
To insist that all or many academic fields suffer the sorts of failures that led the dog-humping paper to be accepted and recognized for excellence in the leading journal of its subdiscipline, e.g.
-
Plot twist: there's actually a spectacular amount of nonsense in all academic fields, and it's only a matter of time before all fields are exposed for being petty, political, and non-rigorous. Even the history of mathematics is filled with terrible ideas passionately defended.
-
All fields? Really? I do wonder if you're one of the types who would jump to criticize us when climate change deniers point to our project and say "see, peer review is crap!"
-
I see it's only a lack of awareness on your part. The actual history of climate change science is filled - to the brim - with scandals. Don't take my word for it. Please investigate before assuming. Here's a good primer by Matt Ridley. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science/ …
-
I like how the first word in your bio is "philosopher." Of course it is.
-
In philosophy, we speak of "ad hominems"... but anyway, you really should check out the actual history of climate change science before throwing around the term "climate change deniers." Scandals are not isolated to the humanities.
-
They don't have to be to address them. This is a weird thing that keeps coming up but I suspect only from our side. I doubt anyone tells a climate scientist pointing out errors in a study that there is also radical constructivism & inconsistent ethics in identity studies.
-
I agree with you. I don't point out the shoddy research in other areas as a defense. I'm pointing them out to say, "The whole damn system is corrupt and producing low-quality work."
- 3 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.