Show Outline with Links
Putting a Little Americana into the Open Road
Always an enjoyable set of pics . . .
They Forgot Plaidimer Putin
What Would We Ever Do Without Peer Review?
Another episode in the chronicles of Higher Ed Hooey . . .
The Content Cluster Muster (05.25.17)
Show Outline with Links
So……………
That hoax article seemed to point out how easy it is to propagate a cultural and academic phallusy. ????
(sp?)
Layers and layers of fact checkers and editors. Now we know why they’re in layers.
One would think that the topic itself would arouse some suspicion by the fact checkers,
There must have been some sort of dysfunction in the methodology applied.????
ROTFL! Look up the word without the “y” and you might choose to edit that comment to read fallacy.
Are you suggesting I made a phaux pas? ????
If you enjoy this sort of perspective on academia I can’t recommend https://twitter.com/realpeerreview highly enough. To mix a metaphor, there’s enough wood, hay, and stubble in there to burn for quite a long time…
In particular I enjoy the first comment on this Retraction Watch piece about the hoax: http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/24/publisher-blames-bad-choice-reviewer-publication-hoax-paper-penis-social-construct/?utm_content=buffere69b9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Apparently even though it was intended to be a hoax some people think it ought to be taken seriously.
Copied here, for posterity, or at least for a little while. Daniel Helman May 24, 2017 at 3:40 pm I have read the paper and conclude that although the authors intended to write a hoax paper, their paper adheres to the standards of the field and is coherent. The authors do not believe in what they’ve written, and I think it is interesting to consider that a satire piece such as this may actually portray a valid perspective despite their intentions. Their work highlights differences between the natural and social sciences. I am not uncomfortable with the notion that the social… Read more »
And why shouldn’t they? It’s indistinguishable from most “Feminist Studies” papers.
Please, somebody with some web ninja skills write a program that automatically generates these papers.
Already done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator
Generated, on demand, here: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Pastor Doug, how is your son doing?
Amanda, here’s a video Nate posted yesterday.
Thanks, Valerie!
A more sober take on the conceptual penis: https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/an-embarrassing-moment-for-the-skeptical-movement/
Sober?
No lack of koolaide saturating that article.
Could you point it out? Massimo’s article is infinitely better than the self trumpeting skeptic article.
(I take the “pretty much all gender studies are BS” position. But bad arguments and antics aren’t helpful.)
The Massimo article was pretty long winded, so it bears a striking resemblance to an ad nauseam fallacy.
Then it allows that there is often times no “science” in social science endeavors, but rather social science functions as a “tuxedo” for non authoritative opinions. The hoax pretty much fights opinion with opinion, but social science does not have the scientific standing to classify itself as more than a dressed up opinion in the first place.
The Koolaide is, social science even thinking that it is a scientific discipline.????
In other news, say what you want about the left’s thug elements, at least they don’t (yet) elect them to office.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/26/gianforte-wins-montana-house-candidate-facing-assault-charge-wins-special-election.html
Actually, yes the left does!
Take Al Franken, ….please!
http://nypost.com/2004/01/27/al-franken-knocks-down-dean-heckler/
????