Are you insisting that it's fairly easy for amateurs to get reputable medical journals to publish research that started with a preferred conclusion?
-
-
Replying to @ConceptualJames
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
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
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
It's not a secret. They're publishing things saying we need to get beyond evidence and reason and publishing pieces consistent with that criteria. It's not bad papers sneaking through a system which claims to be evidence-based. Its a system which doesn't claim to be.
2 replies 10 retweets 49 likes -
This is what we are pointing out. We can't compare this to science unless science journals are also claiming that knowledge rooted in science and reason are masculinist & imperialist constructs & publishing papers based on positional experience as a neglected epistemology.
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
This is possibly the crucial difference. Science journals may do a bad job of upholding epistomelogical standards. Many disciplines may need to reconsider common practices. But at least science journals aim for an ideal of objectivity, even if it is more honoured in the breach.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is certainly a difference between succeeding in cheating a system which aims at objectivity and successfully getting a paper which denied objectivity into a system which is just fine with that. The first is inadequate checking. The second is explicit use of bad epistemology
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
To concede the point even further, it may be that standards of rigour in certain ostensibly scientific fields may be too lax. (Pysch maybe?) There is a difference between failing to meet certain objective ideals, and openly opposing the whole notion of scientific objectivity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
"openly opposing the whole notion of scientific objectivity" has a lot packed into it. It would depend on what the notion of scientific objectivity was that was being invoked, what about it was being opposed, etc. I don't know how to analyze such broad claims
-
-
No idea what that means.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.