Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
briandavidearp's profile
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
Brian D. Earp
@briandavidearp

Tweets

Brian D. Earp

@briandavidearp

@Yale; @UniofOxford; @hastingscenter; @TheAtlantic - psychology, philosophy of science, bioethics, tech, politics, gender and sexuality, etc. RT ≠ endorsement.

oxford.academia.edu/BrianEarp
Joined July 2011

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28

      Brian D. Earp Retweeted Brian D. Earp

      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 …

      Brian D. Earp added,

      Brian D. Earp @briandavidearp
      Replying to @ConceptualJames
      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 ..
      1 reply 6 retweets 11 likes
    2. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp

      Are you insisting that it's fairly easy for amateurs to get reputable medical journals to publish research that started with a preferred conclusion?

      1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes
    3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames

      I know that Hypatia is generally well-regarded; I don't know about the others, so I don't have a basis for comparing degree of reputability. But, my goodness, yes, I see shoddy research published by authors with a preferred conclusion published in medicine *all the time*. As for

      3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
    4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

      ... whether they are amateurs: they will often have 2 learn a little about statistics first, or collaborate with someone who can run some of the basic tests; but as I wrote in my thread, the standard way of using stats in medicine & psychology produces loads of type 1 errors ..

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

      ... 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

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

      ... 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 ...

      11:42 AM - 28 Oct 2018 from Cedar Rapids, IA
      • 2 Likes
      • niall 📊 👨‍💻 🕵️🗯️🤖🧐
      4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          .. 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 …

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. (((theophilus)))‏ @pammalamma Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          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?

          3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @pammalamma @ConceptualJames

          "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?

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. (((theophilus)))‏ @pammalamma Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          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?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Helen Dale‏Verified account @_HelenDale Oct 28
          Replying to @pammalamma @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
        7. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
          Replying to @_HelenDale @pammalamma @briandavidearp

          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.

          3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
        8. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @ConceptualJames @_HelenDale @pammalamma

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        9. (((theophilus)))‏ @pammalamma Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames @_HelenDale

          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.

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        10. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          ... 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 …

          3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
        3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          ... 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 ...

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          ... 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 ...

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          ... 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

          2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          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.

          1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
        7. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @ConceptualJames

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        8. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp

          How many of our papers have you actually read?

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        9. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          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.

          2 replies 10 retweets 49 likes
        3. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 28
          Replying to @HPluckrose @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          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.

          2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes
        4. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames

          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

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames

          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?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          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.

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2018 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info