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 …
-
-
.. 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.
-
The entire claim I was critiquing was "shown." I thought the whole point of the big hoax was to provide sufficient evidence to support a bold claim that it seemed to me, did not at all reach the level of demonstration.
-
I’m not sure I was understood. Lack of a reaction akin to demonization in one case and not in the other, I do see as significant and indicative of varying attitudes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
... and here is a paper of mine critiquing a study published by pretty smart researchers in the Journal of Urology - a top journal - for making truly astonishing errors in statistical interpretation and reasoning https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tre.531 …
-
... I could copy in dozens of more examples, but I referred to the 'replication crisis' generally because it is, well, a general problem. So I see your hoax as caught on the horns of a dilemma: if your point was that a person can, in bad faith, trick a small number of ...
-
... journals of unknown representativeness in a given field into accepting ideologically driven research with prima facie absurd conclusions, then I would say, nothing new to see here, that was already obvious. If your point was rather that you had provided good evidence of ...
-
... a special problem in gender studies and related fields, as compared to others that you don't see as so worrying to the integrity of academia, then I would say that your hoax was very poorly designed to provide strong evidence of such a thing & so did not provide such evidence
-
Here's a simple point: I understand the problem in grievance studies, and I know how to manipulate it, essentially at will. No other field I'm aware of is susceptible to this particular problem.
-
The particular problem of you, personally, being able to get *some* bad-faith papers into *a couple* of top journals in *any* other field, if you were sufficiently motivated? I think you sell yourself rather short. But anyway, you didn't try, so we have no evidence of this.
-
How many of our papers have you actually read?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's not a secret. They're publishing things saying we need to get beyond evidence and reason and publishing pieces consistent with that criteria. It's not bad papers sneaking through a system which claims to be evidence-based. Its a system which doesn't claim to be.
-
This is what we are pointing out. We can't compare this to science unless science journals are also claiming that knowledge rooted in science and reason are masculinist & imperialist constructs & publishing papers based on positional experience as a neglected epistemology.
-
Helen I appreciate ur measured way of communicating we me. I do think there r problems in aspects of epist. behind a good deal of work in gender studies. Epist. probs. in psych.etc. r often different, but still quite deep & bad, if perhaps less overtly make-fun-of-able by critics
-
If you'd like to do a Skype conversation with me sometime where we talk about this stuff in proper detail, I'd be very happy to do that. I unfortunately can't spend much more time on Twitter today because I've got some pressing deadlines. Let me know if you'd like to do a chat?
-
I think I have made the claims we are and are not making clearer now? If not, have a look at the discussion bit of the Areo piece where we talk about what it can be said to show and cannot be said to show.
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.