If you can't see how the dog-humping paper is ridiculous, you're part of the problem.https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056627434211213314 …
-
-
Replying to @ConceptualJames
I haven't read the dog-humping paper. But if you're saying that, unless I reach the same conclusion as the one you intended (if I do read it), I am part of the problem, that is not a very fruitful dialectical tactic. In fact, it means, "the paper is ridiculous" is unfalsifiable.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
Our study sought to test whether we could get a journal to accept a paper which claimed it could detect human rape culture by watching dogs unwanted humping and then advocate ways to train men like dogs. It did. We do see a problem with that. We know others don't. Maybe you.
2 replies 4 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @briandavidearp
It's getting especially amusing to me to watch this thread play out (and Brian's retweets) knowing he hasn't really the faintest idea of what's actually in the dog-humping paper. If I were him, I'd shut up until I read it and its reviews, but hey.
2 replies 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
It has become clear Brian's disagreement wasn't a simple misunderstanding of our claims as comparative and consequently in need of a control. Since clarifying that one, he's indicated an approval of Butler, an ambiguity on objective truth & the potential for approving our papers.
3 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
Helen I’d felt our exchange was charitable till now. I indicated that an insinuation that Butler’s corpus was of no value whatsoever seemed too strong, that I would need to know what specific claim a person was making about the notion of scientific objectivity (not ‘objective
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
... truth’) before I could evaluate whether the claim had any merit, and that, as is generally the case, merely knowing the punchline of a paper written in bad faith without carefully reading it is not enough for me to conclude in advance its argument cannot have had any value.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So all three things you just attributed to me were misrepresentations and false, whether you intended them that way or not. I hope there’s a way to recover a more charitable discussion but I fear this may not be the venue
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
I'm not meaning to misrepresent you, just pointing out the objection has changed and you now think we might disagree on the nature of our problem with these fields rather than how to go about addressing it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not very interested in discussing whether Butler has any worth, what we mean by objectivity in science and whether our dogpark paper could be seen to have worth right now. I've written much on this and a book is forthcoming. We've resolved the issue we began on.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That’s fine if you don’t want to discuss those things and I will look forward to reading your book
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
I've already written a lot about why I favour evidence-based epistemologies and consistent liberal ethics over constructivist ones and inconsistent ones based on perceptions of power balances. I don't want to go back to these basic arguments on Twitter.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 1 more reply
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.