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 @HPluckrose
I don't understand the tendency to overstatement. I read the dog park paper when it first came out & received attention. I didn't scrutinize it at the time as it seemed a curiosity, but I did take in the main points. "[not] the faintest idea" is simply false.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
My initial thread was not at all about any particular paper; it was about the more general approach. When u raised more specific issues re: that particular paper, I felt I owed it 2 u not 2 conclude anything about it until I could re-read more carefully. For this I am mocked
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @HPluckrose
The paper is relevant, I think. From where I sit, you seem to sorely underestimate how broken it is and in what ways, especially given the treatment it received. The reviews of it should shock you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose
Okay. Like I said a while I back, I would be happy to discuss more once I've had the chance to read the paper more carefully, if you wanted my thoughts on specifics. Those specifics weren't relevant to the structure of my methods argument, so it felt a bit like a change of tack
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @HPluckrose
Hmm, I think they are relevant, though, and I seem unable to communicate this to you. It's not a small thing that they thought these papers marvelous. It's clearly indicative of something. I think saying it's a special problem is warranted on those grounds, esp given "theory."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose
I think part of the source of our different intuitions is that, I have seen some *really, really* shoddy work in top journals in other fields, so for me the bar very high to show 'special shoddiness'. And a small sample size is noisy 2 interpret so hard to clear that bar
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
So, let's say I re-read the paper & it turns out that, in a way that surpasses even the worst crap I've seen in other journals, this one paper is truly quite sloppy and incoherent. I'm just not sure n = 1, no matter how egregious, can support the generalized claim u want to make
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.