... 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 ...
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
.. non-prestigious journal pointing out extremely basic methodological and reasoning problems in Translational Psychiatry, published by Nature, by authors with a pretty obvious foregone conclusion https://www.jctres.com/media/filer_public/a4/48/a4482da7-a99a-49bf-848e-9927590a77b7/boyle2017jclintranslres_epub.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
But doesn’t the fact that Nature was willing to publish criticism of methods and that the authors were (probably) not accused of being “tools of the right” (and worse) for doing so just demonstrate James’ assertion that the sciences are more self-regulating and falsifiable?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pammalamma @ConceptualJames
"Demonstrate" is a strong word. So no, James's assertion doesn't demonstrate that. Are you suggesting that high-quality journals in feminist philosophy or related areas do not (ever? sometimes? usually?) publish well-thought-out criticisms of their prevailing methods?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
I’m saying that if anyone questions feminist journals politically correct ideas, those people will be shunned and labeled as enemies, and that’s exactly what has happened. Helen even posted a quote yesterday saying anyone who questions those ideas is automatically wrong. See it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I’m not sure dunking on the rest of the academy to save grievance studies is, ahem, helping. People on my side of the political aisle would cheerfully hack everything in universities except law & STEM into bleeding chunks & chuck it in the Thames. Don’t give them ammunition.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
It's shockingly irresponsible that so many high-minded academics think that's the appropriate move in this moment. Earp insists we haven't shown a "special" problem in grievance studies, which might be true on "shown" but is a patent and irresponsible falsehood.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
There is no way on God’s Green Earth people in unrelated disciplines could get up to speed in under a year in the two fields in which I have postgraduate qualifications (law & classics). That you three could do so suggests ‘grievance studies’ is intellectually underpowered.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Well, let's see. Helen has written here & there about how gender and critical studies *is* her area. Paul is, as I understand, a professional philosopher. Combined, that gives neighboring competence in the basics of a lot of the target fields. What counts as 'unrelated'? ...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
His name is Peter.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Oops, sorry about that, I mixed him up with Paul Boghossian, a philosopher at NYU. I knew that Peter was not that Paul. Rather, I just mixed their names up. I do apologize.
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.