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 …
It's not that u claimed that "no other types of problems exist in any other studies." It's rather that the way u & ur co-authors framed much discussion of ur hoax (that I read) was there was a *special* problem, i.e., compared to other fields. But ur hoax doesn't show *that.*
-
-
I still don't know what you're talking about. This is tautological. We are claiming that there is a special epistemological & ethical problem with using certain kinds of theory and then we looked at journals from various fields which did use it & got them to publish the problems
-
Critical theory rooted in postmodernism is a special problem. It can only be tested where it exists. If we tried to send a Butlerian argument about the construction of masculinity to a physics journal, they'd say it was out of scope & refer us to journals which used Butler.
-
In the same way, someone wanting to show that some bad ideas about dietary fat are being perpetuated to harmful effect, this is a special problem within a specialty. They'd have to send to journals which covered dietary fat & not to journals which didn't. Why isn't this clear?
-
If we'd said "Only gender studies use this theory," we'd need to have a control but we didn't limit in that way. We sent papers to the top journals we could find who were open to this kind of theoretical work. That's why we have one in geography.
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.