A little mini-thread about the grievance studies hoax, responding to concerns from @ConceptualJames that the emphasis of my initial set of responses may have been in someway misplacedhttps://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056611677251272706 …
-
-
... as 4 Hypatia, however, I take it 1 of co-authors is professional philosopher, so that wouldn't be an amateur. For other journals, if they had novel quantitative methods you had to first learn (to the level of a typical NHST user), might've taken u a bit longer, but not much
-
... anyway, I already said in my original tweet that there *may* be an asymmetry in terms of average epistemological rigor required to publish in a top journal in gender studies vs. medicine, but your hoax doesn't show that. Just for a few examples, here is a paper in a ...
-
.. non-prestigious journal pointing out extremely basic methodological and reasoning problems in Translational Psychiatry, published by Nature, by authors with a pretty obvious foregone conclusion https://www.jctres.com/media/filer_public/a4/48/a4482da7-a99a-49bf-848e-9927590a77b7/boyle2017jclintranslres_epub.pdf …
-
But doesn’t the fact that Nature was willing to publish criticism of methods and that the authors were (probably) not accused of being “tools of the right” (and worse) for doing so just demonstrate James’ assertion that the sciences are more self-regulating and falsifiable?
-
"Demonstrate" is a strong word. So no, James's assertion doesn't demonstrate that. Are you suggesting that high-quality journals in feminist philosophy or related areas do not (ever? sometimes? usually?) publish well-thought-out criticisms of their prevailing methods?
-
I’m saying that if anyone questions feminist journals politically correct ideas, those people will be shunned and labeled as enemies, and that’s exactly what has happened. Helen even posted a quote yesterday saying anyone who questions those ideas is automatically wrong. See it?
-
I’m not sure dunking on the rest of the academy to save grievance studies is, ahem, helping. People on my side of the political aisle would cheerfully hack everything in universities except law & STEM into bleeding chunks & chuck it in the Thames. Don’t give them ammunition.
-
It's shockingly irresponsible that so many high-minded academics think that's the appropriate move in this moment. Earp insists we haven't shown a "special" problem in grievance studies, which might be true on "shown" but is a patent and irresponsible falsehood.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The dog-humping paper used black feminist criminology to interpret ludicrous data so it could conclude that we can repair rape culture in humans by emulating dog training methods on men and was given special recognition for excellence. That happens in medicine "all the time"?
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.