You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
1) There are different standards of evidence in different fields, including different fields of science. 2) These fields aren't pretending to be science (unlike some fields...). 3) Peer review sucks for catching deliberate fraud, including in hard sciences.
And frankly... the journals under attack seem pretty small beer to me. I have a hard time caring whether their peer review standards are to snuff. There are little consequences associated with them being wrong that I can see?
The same cannot be said in many other scientific fields... I don't really get why the self-appointed stalwarts of objectivity don't spend as much time talking about how industrial funding taints scientific inquiry as they do small postmodernist studies.
I think there are many more methodological issues (p-hacking, replicability crises, lack of progress in some fields despite huge investments, etc.) that one can look at before worrying if a postmodern journal has a methodology that would satisfy Karl Popper.
(Which is why I tend to conclude that the people who think postmodernism is the enemy of science are either being disingenuous or just being foolish.)
(And to be very clear: I have never heard of any of the journals targeted, and I don't read their scholarship or put any particular value on it. But I think a "troll-based" approach to methodology — which is what I think hoaxing is — is not at all productive or interesting.)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
