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.
-
I think what a lot of physics-y types don't get is: humanities scholars are generally NOT trying to claim they are the most rigorous. They are NOT trying to claim that every article is some perfect creation of truth. They have different goals.
Places with strong gate-keepers can encourage conformity and lack of risk-taking. Places with loose gate-keepers can let in fuzzy thinking. There are also benefits to both approaches, too. The idea that there is a one-sized fits-all approach doesn't work even for "hard" sciences.
-
-
Well if you take that philosophy to its opposite zenith (no gatekeepers or laxed gatekeepers) What's the point of even having academic journals? That's what they are....a gauruntee that the work has stood up to a minimal rigour. A method of sifting through the chaff.
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.