We fully understand there are predatory publishers with low standards of peer review. We understand shoddy work gets done, not every PhD thesis is nobel-worthy. It’s not an excuse to dismiss entire fields - I could find you as much shitty biology in bogus pay for play journals.
-
-
Grievance studies is a pejorative like feminazi, an attempt to snidely take down ideas that the authors can’t challenge in the literature, so they resort to hoaxing and sliming the whole field with the ludicrous actions of a few.
-
You can state the same premise over and over again, but that does not prove it as absolutely true.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Note also that plenty of fields "that produce scientific results" are duped by bad actors as
@RetractionWatch shows on a depressingly regular basis. I've found speculative (aka bullshit) results uncritically cited as gospel in engineering texts that should know better -
Citations available upon request. Not that anyone cares about finer details of material property data and the baffling world of molecular modeling. It's not even my field and I found issues just by verify references.
#oddlyenoughitactuallyisrocketscience
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's OK. Twitter is all about short hand.
-
Even shorthand that deceives, apparently.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
OK, looking at more replies: I don't know who James Lindsay is, and I wasn't parroting anything. If people can provide evidence why this is a baseless pejorative I'll drop it. I didn't know. Still open to evidence that these fields are real science. Skeptical.
-
Why should people prove it to you? Isn’t it obvious it’s pejorative? If I said you were a moron would it become your job to prove otherwise?
End of conversation
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.