And I should point out, it has to be REALLY obvious. In my field (chemistry), we see “electron micrographs” constructed by copy-pasting the same three crystals a few times get through *because reviewers assume results are honestly presented*. Should we burn down chemistry, too?
-
-
Replying to @cheomitII @zeynep
I mostly agree with you but I think your missing the main take away from this "hoax". It's not about fraud, it's about the epistemology. "Studies" epistemology has no way of distinguishing between BS and Non-BS, because truth doesn't matter for them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Chemistry's epistemology relies on truth. Science relies on truth. "Studies" don't. It's radical constructivism. Ultimately you don't burn chemistry because of a few cases of Fraud because belief in truth allows for self correcting mechanism (there is something to correct).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But in the case of Grievances studies, truth is something they are uninterested in, they actually don't believe in it. If Truth is out, so is the possibility of distinguishing BS (what is false) from non-BS (what is true). The hoax shows precisely this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Again, 4 confirmation of this, look at what papers were rejected. The ones published in sociology jnls where truth isn't a problem. Epistemology matters. belief in truth allows 4 BS detection. Rejection of truth makes it impossible to detect BS. And also hoax's paper were OBVIOUS
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
*Many* fields lack a reliable means of separating truth from “just so” stories. Should we therefore trash history, theoretical physics and a whole pile of evolutionary biology? Never mind that many fields aren’t - can’t be - empirical (ethics jumps to mind).
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
In these, and more, we throw things against the wall and see what sticks. To have non-experts Dunning-Kruger their way in with vaguely plausible fraud (far less blatant than copy-paste images) and pretend that tells us something about the fields as a whole is absurd.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The hoax shows NOTHING other than a few reviewers/editors are willing to publish papers MANY people find absurd. It may be some trash editors, or muppets who believe anything that fits their ideology; or it may be a perfectly reasonable effort to avoid “false negatives”.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It’s always a balancing act. If you let anything vaguely plausible through, you’re *going* to publish some utter garbage. But screen too hard, you miss quirky results that go on to win Nobel prizes. I know what I’d rather - and I have to wade through and waste time on the crap.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cheomitII @niespika
This delves into it. They "successes" they had were through fake data. Fake data will get you into The Lancet. That's not about any one field; it's about the fact academia assumes people working honestly. That's an issue, but a whole different one. https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html …
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes
These people just have an axe to grind against some fields. Fine, make a conceptual argument. That's okay. This is fraud passing as hoax through deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation of the write-up, and journalists/sympathizers not checking. Not a good look.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @cheomitII
Sure, okay, there's fraud and hoax. Me, I don't mind it. I get why people are upset tho. But not seeing there is two part to the story (what they did and why it was accepted for publication) or conflating the two is absurd. The hoaxing is different from the inability to detect BS
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Again, I point to the fact that journals from one field were able to detect the BS despite of the hoax. So if your only response is "hey hoaxes are bad but fraud does happen" you are missing one part of the story (one that seems to me more important)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.