What seems irresponsible? Sorry, I don't follow what you're referring to
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
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.
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @steveinpursuit @briandavidearp
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!"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
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/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @steveinpursuit @briandavidearp
I like how the first word in your bio is "philosopher." Of course it is.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
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."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If it is, it is not corrupt in the same way and we are interested in a very explicit and particular way - epistemological and ethical criteria for publication - that this in happening. Because that's what we do. Look at epistemology & illiberal ethics. Before this, religion.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Fair enough Helen, but to provide strong evidence of particular epistemological and ethical problems in publication criteria, you would have to run carefully controlled study in good faith. Anecdata from bad-faith papers simply doesn't tell us very much about those things
-
-
What would a control look like?
0 replies 1 retweet 5 likesThanks. 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.