Predatory journals? Real problem. Some crappy work getting in? Issue in many fields. A reasonable discussion about the scope of humanities? Sure. But bring along discussing economics and it’s wild assumptions, too. This hoax isn’t a critique of academia. It’s a misleading stunt.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Sokal did something important. I applaud bullshit detection. This is just playing to the lucrative, anti-intellectual academia-bashing—right & left versions. It’s the difference between asking, say, clinical trials to be pre-registered and grifting by peddling anti-vaccination.
Show this thread -
Catching the deliberateness with which the trio misrepresented what happened is exactly the kind of bullshit detection we need more of! It’s what we try to teach our students. Their bigger hoax is how they got away misrepresentation!
Follow primary docs, not misleading PR.
Show this thread -
It’s painful to see this not-that-great stunt mentioned in same sentence as Alan Sokal’s serious contributions. It’s sad to see smart people fall for the PR misrepresentation—because they like it. Greatest bullshit detection skill is being suspicious of what you want to like.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don’t think their work shows anything either way because it’s shoddy and misrepresented in the write-up and not well-done in the execution. I don’t know the people. They may be well-meaning and got caught up. Ironically, that’s an actual problem in academia and elsewhere!
- Show replies
-
-
-
Oh come on ! You are missing the point. This is not the same as Sokal's. It's not about accepting bullshit. It's about the inability to distinguish bullshit from non-bullshit. Shoddy work is everywhere, but confronted to bullshit, most field try to selfcorrect 1/2
-
But in the "studies" there is no way to make that distinction. Their epistemological framework is not one that allows for the search 4 truth. The point of the hoax is epistemological. Those fields of inquiry are not about knowledge but about political ideology 2/2
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
"I’m sad to contemplate the reviewers trying to help someone fix the mistakes in their paper, while the authors’ intention is to slip through as many mistakes as possible." http://michaelkeenan.tumblr.com/post/178734541040/tldr-this-latest-academic-journal-hoax-is … |
@michaelkeenan_0Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Audit studies are routinely done in fields these authors would like to eliminate, . Problem isn't misrepresenting who they were, it's that they misrepresented THEIR RESULTS. Wrote as if rejected papers were accepted. They also presented fake data which gets you into The Lancet.
- Show replies
-
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.