Our hoaxes provided good evidence of a problem. Our gained expertise in the field provided reason to believe it's a special problem. @HPluckrose
You would have operationalize a certain kind of badness that exists at a level that could apply to both fields, embed that badness in papers in a systematic way, send the papers to journals matched for impact (or some such), and see which sample fared worse. But short of that
-
-
... since, indeed, it WOULD be very hard to design a convincing experiment to test your very bold claims in a robust way, it seems to me the second best option would have been to characterize what your hoax "showed" in much more qualified and humble terms.
-
More qualified and humble? We literally said we'd spent a year exploring a stystem and presented what we did and asked people to make their own minds up about whether it indicated a problem. You have created claims that haven't been made. This is what we claimed:pic.twitter.com/Pg2CZfJjiW
-
The first para of ur write up says, "especially in certain fields" ... "strong evidence has been lacking" ... "that is why we ..." I took this framing to suggest that you yourselves had provided strong evidence of the "especially" claim. If not, the framing seems misleading.pic.twitter.com/2TgEHr7CzW
-
We are talking about a special something that has gone wrong. We say what it is in the next sentence and then explain in much more detail further down. I still don't know what you want. For us to have sent our papers to science departments & been told out of scope or not?
-
Helen I feel we are somehow talking past each other. I'm sorry about that. Unfortunately I can't be on twitter any more today. I hope you'll reach out if you're interested and we can have a friendly conversation in real-time over Skype?
-
I don't know how to be any clearer, Brian. I think if you accept that we were saying "There is a problem in radical constructivist approaches to the humanities and we spent a year inside it. This is what we did. Decide for yourself if its a problem" and nothing else, we're good
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Both fields." Which both fields? You must know that different fields have different scopes and we can only send constructivist identity studies papers to journals which accept constructivist identity studies papers. I don't know how to be clearer on this?
-
Sorry, I thought you meant to be raising nutrition studies as an example alternative field to critical studies to which it could be compared or used as a control. So, 'both fields' meant those two.
-
You're right that nutrition studies doesn't explicitly rely on constructivist identity claims (a rather big barrel: some constructivist identity claims are perfectly reasonable); but it does rely on statistical construction of (e.g.) cancer causation, which is probably far worse.
-
OK. I don't know about this but would people be allowed to look at that or what they have to somehow compare it to problems in gender studies as a control? Couldn't it just be a problem in its own right to be addressed as such?
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.