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
      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
    2. 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
    3. 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 ...

      4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
    4. 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
    5. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
      Replying to @briandavidearp

      Does that field possess the epistemological tools to correct that problem, or does it ask the authors to skew their analysis even further before considering the paper publishable? That is, what tool other that problematization is left to grievance studies to correct its errors?

      1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes
    6. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames

      Well, if you think that "problematization" is the *only* epistemological tool of what you call grievance studies, I'd take this as evidence of having a rather one-dimensional, caricatured view those fields. But perhaps you are exaggerating for effect.

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

      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

      1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes
    8. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp

      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.

      2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
    9. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames

      I didn't read that paper. Was it published? Or do you mean that some of the reviewers said some positive things about it?

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

      Haha, it was given a status of "minor revision" with a request only to shorten it (after review by two peer reviewers) within only weeks. Editor: "reviewers found much to commend in your paper." No requested substantive revisions. Hole. In. One. Ran out of time, though.

      2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
      Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
      Replying to @ConceptualJames

      When I have some extra time, I may give the paper a read. I don't know how to evaluate a paper in terms of supposed ridiculousness based on punch-line style conclusions designed to come across as ridiculous.

      12:23 PM - 28 Oct 2018 from Cedar Rapids, IA
      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Skeptic Review‏ @SkepticReview89 Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          How in the world do you write a thread on a project you have not yet taken the time to read?

          2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
        3. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @SkepticReview89 @ConceptualJames

          I said I've not read dog park paper *carefully.* I mentioned 1 other paper I did not read. I did read some of the others. Moreover, my claim -- namely, that the hoax did not show there was a *special* problem, whether or not there is one -- doesn't rest on reading all the papers

          2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
        4. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @SkepticReview89

          I'd suggest reading the reviewers' comments too. Just sayin'.

          1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes
        5. Brian D. Earp‏ @briandavidearp Oct 28
          Replying to @ConceptualJames @SkepticReview89

          I did look through some of the comments that were posted. But I didn't get the impression that the full reviews were posted, just selections. I'll have to look again when I have some more time.

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        6. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @SkepticReview89

          Giddyup! https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 …

          1 reply 2 retweets 10 likes
        7. James Lindsay‏ @ConceptualJames Oct 28
          Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp @SkepticReview89

          James Lindsay Retweeted New Real Peer Review

          Here's a TL;DR of the dog-humping paper.https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/1004805745068642304?s=19 …

          James Lindsay added,

          New Real Peer Review @RealPeerReview
          The application of "Black feminist criminology categories" to human reactions of "rape culture" among dogs in Portland, Oregon 🙄😂https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346 … pic.twitter.com/VwgFfB86rO
          Show this thread
          1 reply 5 retweets 12 likes
        8. 1 more reply
        1. Atilius‏ @_Atilius_ Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          What snapped me out of postmodernism was an assignment to translate works, from Derrida to Brassier, into plain English for a broadsheet. Something I'd done before with tech. I was left with a Notepad of clippings plainly no more insightful than pub talk or bad teenage poetry.

          0 replies 2 retweets 8 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo
        1. Ian Fisher‏ @IanFisher_me Oct 28
          Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames

          It's plain that "you guys" in academia have simply made up shit to study in order to perpetuate your own "industry of social justice". James and colleagues just exposed it as such. Please use your obvious intelligence on something useful. The world needs you...don't you see that.

          0 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo

      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