They don’t show that at all. If you fake data, you can even get into The Lancet.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
If you already know what's completely implausible off-the-top-of-your-head, there is no point to peer review or to collecting data. There is no field, including the "hardest" science that doesn't have this problem. Fraudalent data sometimes gets through. A total different issue.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This wasn’t marketed as a “fraudulent data will go places”. If it were you’d have an example from The Lancet, as well. I’m calling it, they’re not honest about what they’ve done and did not. And fraudulent data has nothing to do with what Sokal did.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Come on. It’s pretty clear what they have a problem with from their write-up and methods. Bullshit detection and misrepresented grievances (of theirs!!!!) are different. I’m all for the former.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No they misrepresented what they did. They use data fraud, act like it reveals something about field/method rather than about fraud. They have clearly misleading write-up. Shouldn’t be mentioned in same breath as Sokal’s actually serious and substantive body work and criticism.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
No. Just like I don’t agree with anti-vaxxers just because I think clinical trials should be pre-registered and conflict-of-interest is a growing issue for medical research
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.