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 …
-
-
Re: other tools: I have refereed many papers focused on gender studies in philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc., & I usually ask for: strong empirical data to support given claims, logical clarity in connecting ideas, making explicit unstated assumptions, falsifiability etc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Man, I just wrote 20 papers in the field (with my collaborators) in ten months; 7 were accepted; 1 honored for excellence; and at least 4 (I'd guess 5) more are likely to have gotten in had we just had time to see it through. I know what I did and how I did it. I read the reviews
-
It's certainly not the *only* "epistemological" method they employ, however. Intersectionality has standpoint epistemology baked right in. We wrote an apparently well-received paper for Feminist Theory insisting that artificial intelligence must be based in something like this.
-
I didn't read that paper. Was it published? Or do you mean that some of the reviewers said some positive things about it?
-
FWIW I've identified the spot where I got confused. This AI paper you mentioned I have not read. I started mixing up which one we were talking about when right about here
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.