3 ms·
So, you feel like when someone says all fields are fallible and that you should examine their edification critically, that they are simultaneously making the cl
by tomlock 8y ago
So, you feel like when someone says all fields are fallible and that you should examine their edification critically, that they are simultaneously making the claim that all fields are equivalent?
Do you feel you are fallible in your identification of which fields are concerned with the truth and which ones aren't?
- darawk 8y agoI'm saying that you have made no argument whatsoever that math and physics are equivalently fallible to gender studies, you've merely insinuated it. If you've got an argument to make, feel free to make it. But citing the replication crisis does not cut it.
- tomlock 8y agoThings are either fallible or they aren't, and since it seems you're willing to accept that all fields are fallible "to some degree" aka are fallible, we shouldn't edify any of them uncritically. Are you saying that you can claim things can be fallible without being equivalent? Because that's what I'm saying, and I'm glad we agree. The replication crisis is a perfect example of the problem faced by all fields, of papers of questionable veracity being accepted by peer-reviewed journals. Convenient for you to say it is not up for discussion. However, I am casting a critical eye on your seemingly infallible nature, and I choose to consider it relevant.
- darawk 8y ago> The replication crisis is a perfect example of the problem faced by all fields, of papers of questionable veracity being accepted by peer-reviewed journals. You're absolutely right. Now, feel free to explain how that is relevant to THIS issue.
- tomlock 8y agoBecause both address getting papers that are incorrect and have made up evidence into prominent peer-reviewed journals.