Our hoaxes provided good evidence of a problem. Our gained expertise in the field provided reason to believe it's a special problem. @HPluckrose
-
-
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
It is certainly a specific problem. It could in principle turn up in any field which included critical theory approaches with roots in postmodernism but it's tautological to explain we can't find evidence of the problem of theory in journals which don't include theory.
5 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
I just don't know what is wanted. How a control can operate in this context. How would someone who wanted to test a concern that bad science was being published in nutrition proceed except by looking at journals which publish on nutrition?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
... 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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
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
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
Yes, Brian. We do claim that grievance studies is part of the humanities. If you can find physics departments offering courses on the cultural construction of gender drawing on Butler, knock yourself out. If we'd found any physics journals with this in their scope, we'd have sent
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Well, the claim as written is ambiguous. It could mean that, compared to other fields within the humanities there is a special problem. Or it could mean that, there is a field that is within the humanities that, when compared with other fields, has a special problem.
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
There is. We called it grievance studies! There are also special problems in other fields, I am sure and encourage people in those fields to look at them. We were looking at this one.
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.