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
-
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Replying to @briandavidearp
You could reply with dozens of examples. I could send you thousands of grievance studies papers. Most of the canon, in fact. As you said, one really only needs to read the papers that are there to see the problem exists.
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
Just remember: Every time you launch this defense, you're putting rigorous journals in fields with functioning epistemologies on par with whatever is happening in feminist geography that honored us for insisting that dog-humping tells us about rape culture and how to fix it.
2 replies 5 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames
... I haven't read ur dog humping paper carefully. It's clear that u chose a "punch-line" calculated to sound absurd. But if I took a "punchline" from many extremely rigorous areas of metaphysics, or heck, physics, it might sound pretty absurd ("tables don't exist"). This does ..
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
Also, metaphysics: just say no. I've been railing on metaphysics for going on ten years now. It's a different kind of waste of time, but it doesn't institute institutional boards that fire you for having the wrong metaphysics (anymore -- we stopped that for a reason).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Saying "just say no" to an entire discipline like metaphysics that has produced, yes, lots of papers most likely of little practical value (that is not of course the only kind of value) but also much profound thought, is an enormous oversimplification in my view.
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
From this thread I've learned two things: 1. You say a lot of words, and 2. You convey very little information I feel bad for your students
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. 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.