Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by mmj_uk, Jan 11, 2019.
The times we live in are so sad, yet it's bitter sweet due to articles like these.
Being someone who thinks that the scientific method is the best way to establish objective truth I value a system where a hypothesis is made that can then be tested againsts repeatable experiments to either prove, disprove or refine the hypothesis.
Such poor academic rigour as shown here affects all of the sciences and the whole premise of peer reviewed work.
This happens a lot with medical papers too, bad data is pushed through with biased results and they get their mates in another department to sign it off. No one else bothers to read anything apart from the trial outline and the conclusion, ignoring all the misrepresented data in the middle.
OUCH!, get out of that.
The issue the authors discuss on Joe Rogan is something they call ‘Academic Laundering’.
Once these papers are published in ‘peer reviewed journals’ they become part of the accepted body of knowlege and can then be cited by other papers to further validate these ideas.
As the body of ‘evidence’ for these grievance studies grows, the people perpetuating these views become more empowered.
What’s worse is some of the hoax papers that weren’t accepted, or were returned to be revised as part of the peer-review process, because they weren’t extreme enough.
We then see the students of these subjects demonstrating or protesting against perceived injustices because they have been ‘proven’ by such papers.
Because you care less about those around you and how the next generation is brought up than we do. Students are being taught lies in our universities (subsidised by us, I might add). Government policy and legislation is influenced by the output of such academics. The whole teenage "not caring" attitude, the rest of us grow out of. We live in this society, and to quote Donne, no man is an island.
Those pictures are worrying.
IIRC, the second one is Sociology class at an American University. Actually spoke with the person who took it and no, there's no excusing context. The first one I just saw posted somewhere. Yep - very worrying. Nor especially atypical these days.
The problem here is that most people don't understand either the process or purpose of the peer review process.
Peer review does not involve repeating the study or rerunning the experiments. It also doesn't involve challenging internally consistent conclusions (that's the realm of a counter study).
How do you know it's not atypical, got any numbers to show or is just your "feelings"?
I also definitely do not care if some pointless US university is allowing this to be taught, that's their problem not mine, because AMAZINGLY i'm not American, nor do i live there.
Show me a UK university teaching this that has >50% of the university in the class, then i'll care.
"science is a social construct" in a modern classroom with artificial lighting and a projector displaying this nonsense... .
StriderX shows they have almost certainly never been educated at a university......
Expecting more than 50% of a university in the class!
How exactly do you think universities work?
And on what planet does any one class have over half the university present (be that at once or at different times!)
If you ever did attend a university it must have been a rather small one with few classes!
You're kinda missing the point. When someone cites a study to back up their nonsense, the fact that it's a "published, peer reviewed study" lends it weight. The point is that even minor academic journals have a responsibility to curate their content, and it appears some are not doing their job.
Talk about misleading topic title, the passages did not pass peer review, they were published in a peer review journal.
One is a fault with the editors of the journals. The other is a demonstration of the scientific methodology of peer review working exactly as intended.
Yes and no, it depends on whether the journals editors are qualified in the relevant field as if not their not part of the peer review process their just editors.
As a scientist, I find it funny how people outside science talk about Peer Review and Peer Reviewed papers. Peer Review is basically the lowest hurdle that something has to pass. It means, really, very little. What matters is how those ideas are then received, cited, developed, and challenged. Huge amounts of garbage is written, peer reviewed, and published every year. Even most good papers contain some dodgy work; and some of the drekk that gets published in top journals like Science and Nature is astonishing.
There's nothing special about the areas that are targeted by these hoaxers, except that they've deliberately set out to deceive, and stopping deception is really, really not what Peer Review is about. The whole process basically assumes that everyone involved is acting in good faith.
This is a Joe Rogan interview with the two guys who did this.
Quite scary that we have nutters with no idea allowed to lecture students now.
"sociology" was a useless enough degree to begin with.
To be fair they, or at least one of them, are assistant professors of philosophy and that's not something I'd consider to be a science, apologies to anyone not working or studying in the hard sciences.
Philosophy is the root of all science. Without philosophy there would be no science.
But that isn't the same as claiming philosophy is a science, seems there is disagreement among philosophers on that one.
Not that the issue of whether their particular field of study is or isn't a science is particularly relevant to whether their arguments are sound here.
"We need a final solution to the white cis heteronormative patriarchy."
Separate names with a comma.