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
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... whether they are amateurs: they will often have 2 learn a little about statistics first, or collaborate with someone who can run some of the basic tests; but as I wrote in my thread, the standard way of using stats in medicine & psychology produces loads of type 1 errors ..
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... as 4 Hypatia, however, I take it 1 of co-authors is professional philosopher, so that wouldn't be an amateur. For other journals, if they had novel quantitative methods you had to first learn (to the level of a typical NHST user), might've taken u a bit longer, but not much
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... anyway, I already said in my original tweet that there *may* be an asymmetry in terms of average epistemological rigor required to publish in a top journal in gender studies vs. medicine, but your hoax doesn't show that. Just for a few examples, here is a paper in a ...
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
... and here is a paper of mine critiquing a study published by pretty smart researchers in the Journal of Urology - a top journal - for making truly astonishing errors in statistical interpretation and reasoning https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tre.531 …
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
Does that field possess the epistemological tools to correct that problem, or does it ask the authors to skew their analysis even further before considering the paper publishable? That is, what tool other that problematization is left to grievance studies to correct its errors?
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames
Well, if you think that "problematization" is the *only* epistemological tool of what you call grievance studies, I'd take this as evidence of having a rather one-dimensional, caricatured view those fields. But perhaps you are exaggerating for effect.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
Man, I just wrote 20 papers in the field (with my collaborators) in ten months; 7 were accepted; 1 honored for excellence; and at least 4 (I'd guess 5) more are likely to have gotten in had we just had time to see it through. I know what I did and how I did it. I read the reviews
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @briandavidearp
It's certainly not the *only* "epistemological" method they employ, however. Intersectionality has standpoint epistemology baked right in. We wrote an apparently well-received paper for Feminist Theory insisting that artificial intelligence must be based in something like this.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames
I didn't read that paper. Was it published? Or do you mean that some of the reviewers said some positive things about it?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
FWIW I've identified the spot where I got confused. This AI paper you mentioned I have not read. I started mixing up which one we were talking about when right about here
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.