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
OK. I was trying to offer a narrow critique about what I took to be one of ur and ur co-authors' primary claims re: the sort of inference one could reasonably draw from your hoax. If I misunderstood what you were claiming in that regard, then I am sorry for all the spilled ink!
-
-
I think you are seeing extra claims that aren't there. We thought to defend against being misunderstood to say all scholarship is bad or all scholarship into identity is bad. The opposite didn't occur to us - ppl thinking we were claiming it to be the only problem in scholarship.
-
We are often accused of thinking it is the biggest problem in the world but that will be because it is the problem we are interested in. We all, in one way or another, look at truth claims and at liberal ethics. We criticised religion previously because of this interest.
-
We defend focusing on this problem rather than say climate change or the antibiotic crisis or even the Trump administration (tho we do do a fair bit of the last) because we know about this problem & addressing it will strengthen epistemology & ethics on the left where we are.
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.