5 ms·

I couldn't get through the preface with a straight face. There's something really meta about a study which is attacking ideology within academia that is clearly

I couldn't get through the preface with a straight face. There's something really meta about a study which is attacking ideology within academia that is clearly driven by the authors own ideological bias, which presumably had not find a welcome audience in these fields. Labeling a wide swath of the humanities as "grievance studies" belies their ultimate aim, which is to discredit them on an ideological basis rather than on the merits of the arguments.

lallysingh 8y ago
Ok, but let's not discount the work ad-hominem. Are the fields subject to problems of behavior inconsistent with principles the fields typically consider important? If one important principle is fairness between groups of people, then substitution of one group for another in matters of treatment shouldn't alter the results without consideration. If you wouldn't treat group A this way, then it would be inconsistent to accept treating group B the same way without discussing why. And that discussion should be held to some rigor. Without it, we're just talking about group A "vs" group B, instead of principles of how all groups should be treated. Yes, clearly grievances of each group are worth study and analysis. But it deters from the significance of their results if they accept the creation of isomorphic grievances. [spoken, rather obviously, as a computer scientist peering into this field of study from the outside]
tomcam 8y ago
Honest question: what is their ideological bias based on what you read in the preface?
gambler 8y ago
You're setting up an entirely non-falsifiable argument. Do multiple publications of obvious nonsense in peer-reviewed journals prove nothing to you? How do you know there are no other authors doing the same thing with different intent? What level of nonsense would have to get through for you to question the validity field?
fiatjaf 8y ago
You're attacking their study with your ideology.

lallysingh 8y ago

Ok, but let's not discount the work ad-hominem. Are the fields subject to problems of behavior inconsistent with principles the fields typically consider important? If one important principle is fairness between groups of people, then substitution of one group for another in matters of treatment shouldn't alter the results without consideration. If you wouldn't treat group A this way, then it would be inconsistent to accept treating group B the same way without discussing why. And that discussion should be held to some rigor. Without it, we're just talking about group A "vs" group B, instead of principles of how all groups should be treated. Yes, clearly grievances of each group are worth study and analysis. But it deters from the significance of their results if they accept the creation of isomorphic grievances. [spoken, rather obviously, as a computer scientist peering into this field of study from the outside]

tomcam 8y ago

Honest question: what is their ideological bias based on what you read in the preface?

gambler 8y ago

You're setting up an entirely non-falsifiable argument. Do multiple publications of obvious nonsense in peer-reviewed journals prove nothing to you? How do you know there are no other authors doing the same thing with different intent? What level of nonsense would have to get through for you to question the validity field?

fiatjaf 8y ago

You're attacking their study with your ideology.