If you can't see how the dog-humping paper is ridiculous, you're part of the problem.https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056627434211213314 …
-
-
It's not like they just blindly assumed the epistemology in some of these fields lacks objective value. They suspected it, then they became experts in the relevant fields to the degree that they got 7 papers accepted in reputable journals before making this claim.
-
Maybe you should try aiming some of the charity you're advocating to this project.
-
If you read my original string of tweets, you will see that a good proportion of them are devoted to saying the things about which I agree with the authors and the aspects of their hoax I saw as relatively good potential evidence of a special problem in the target fields
-
Assuming they haven't charitably assessed these fields given the just jaw-dropping amount of objective work (which was so rigorous, they were actually praised by many reviewers in the fields) they've put into studying them just doesn't seem super charitable to me.
-
What is so infuriating is that we did put so many hours into this every week for a year, especially James, and then spent more hours trying to explain it & putting everything out there and since then, we've been fielding constant quick, hot & uninformed takes on the significance
-
Tell ya what, I'll volunteer my time to write an insane grievance studies paper in Brian's name, with his permission and help, and we'll see how it goes. What do you say, Brian?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But is it ever OK to form a conclusion against something? Our paper 'joke's on you' was about this. That no matter how deeply we go into something, even to the extent of publishing a paper in the top feminist philosophy journal on it, we'll still be accused of not engaging.
-
We have engaged. I have been studying it for 9 years now. I don't think it has worth. If your default setting is that we must think everything has worth or merit being called 'uncharitable' we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't believe all ideas have worth.
-
I don't *have to* see value in radical cultural constructivism and the application of liberal ethics on a scale in relation to power dynamics. I am within my rights to very strongly oppose this and argue for why. I will also let others argue their case.
-
I don’t know what 2 say. I appreciate your writings on these topics. Something about the hoax struck me as being in bad faith. You don’t have to see value in anything, of course. I floated some thoughts weeks back & let it rest & said at time I admired your thinking generally
-
We misrepresented ourselves for the purpose of the project (which we don't think of as hoaxes but are getting resigned to that term now) but we have not strayed from our purpose in doing it which is consistent with what we've done straightforwardly and for years.
-
I don't want to be confrontational either and I appreciate your good opinion of my work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think one of you needs to file a grievance. I promise I will study it.
Thanks. 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.