3 ms·

Empirical data in individual studies are supposed to have statistical controls that mitigate incorrect conclusions, that's why p values are even a thing. To cl

Empirical data in individual studies are supposed to have statistical controls that mitigate incorrect conclusions, that's why p values are even a thing. To claim that on the one hand individual papers can be wrong, but the additive nature of a field somehow removes the possibility of error in the field, is misguided, to say it gently. Could it be perhaps that this individual paper, which you claim undermines the "entire methodological framework" of these fields, could be one of those individual studies that comes to incorrect conclusions, not because of any statistical flaw, but because of the inbuilt fallibility and political biases of the authors?

darawk 8y ago
Just pay attention to what i'm saying. I'm saying that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of physics and math is legitimate. The replication crisis et al does NOTHING to contradict that. This paper is ASSERTING that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of gender studies is flawed. You may disagree with that assertion. However, citing the replication crisis, which is a DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF ISSUE, does nothing to make your point.
- tomlock 8y ago
  Pay attention to the article! The authors of these hoax papers don't demonstrate or address a methodological flaw in gender studies. They demonstrate that you can get papers written in bad faith into a peer reviewed journal, which is also trivially true for many disciplines, including economics, which you have previously implied people would have a problem getting a "nonsense" paper into.
  - darawk 8y ago
    An empirical paper with a reasonable hypothesis that happens to be wrong is not a nonsense paper. The papers they got published in these journals were not simply empirically false. They were categorically absurd and in some cases wildly unethical. They weren't simply making empirical claims that were reasonable but happened to be false.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      If you presuppose that the category is absurd, the submission of an absurd paper is a vacuous act that proves nothing, and your point should be able to be easily demonstrated by your knowledge of the field as it stands.
  - darawk 8y ago
    HN limits reply depth, so i'll reply here: > If you presuppose that the category is absurd, the submission of an absurd paper is a vacuous act that proves nothing, and your point should be able to be easily demonstrated by your knowledge of the field as it stands. It is my opinion and the thesis of the paper, that the papers that they got accepted to these journals is absurd. I will quote here the theses description of the 7 accepted papers: Sure, most got rejected. But 7 got accepted. And while banality is obviously a subjective value judgment, I don't think it applies to all of them. Just to enumerate the hypotheses that were accepted: > That dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against “the oppressed dog” through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured. This provides insight into training men out of the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone. > That it is only oppressive cultural norms which make society regard the building of muscle rather than fat admirable and that bodybuilding and activism on behalf of the fat could be benefited by including fat bodies displayed in non-competitive ways. > That it is suspicious that men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys, and that this is probably due to fear of being thought homosexual (“homohysteria”) and bigotry against trans people (transphobia). (It combines these ideas into a novel concept “transhysteria,” which was suggested by one of the paper’s peer reviewers.) Encouraging them to engage in receptive penetrative anal eroticism will decrease transphobia and increase feminist values. > That men frequent “breasturants” like Hooters because they are nostalgic for patriarchal dominance and enjoy being able to order attractive women around. The environment that breastaurants provide for facilitating this encourages men to identify sexual objectification and sexual conquest, along with masculine toughness and male dominance, with “authentic masculinity.” The data are clearly nonsense and conclusions drawn from it are unwarranted by it. (NB. One reviewer did raise concerns about the rigor of the data) > That academic hoaxes or other forms of satirical or ironic critique of social justice scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege. > No clear thesis. A rambling poetic monologue of a bitter, divorced feminist, much of which was produced by a teenage angst poetry generator before being edited into something slightly more “realistic” which is then interspersed with self-indulgent autoethnographical reflections on female sexuality and spirituality written entirely in slightly under six hours. > That feminism which foregrounds individual choice and responsibility and female agency and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society. I'll grant you that two of them, the 'breasturants' and Mein Kampf are relatively mild on the absurdity scale. The rest, in my view, are self-evidently ridiculous and/or unethical. If you disagree, feel free to explain why.

darawk 8y ago

Just pay attention to what i'm saying. I'm saying that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of physics and math is legitimate. The replication crisis et al does NOTHING to contradict that. This paper is ASSERTING that the METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK of gender studies is flawed. You may disagree with that assertion. However, citing the replication crisis, which is a DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF ISSUE, does nothing to make your point.

tomlock 8y ago
Pay attention to the article! The authors of these hoax papers don't demonstrate or address a methodological flaw in gender studies. They demonstrate that you can get papers written in bad faith into a peer reviewed journal, which is also trivially true for many disciplines, including economics, which you have previously implied people would have a problem getting a "nonsense" paper into.
- darawk 8y ago
  An empirical paper with a reasonable hypothesis that happens to be wrong is not a nonsense paper. The papers they got published in these journals were not simply empirically false. They were categorically absurd and in some cases wildly unethical. They weren't simply making empirical claims that were reasonable but happened to be false.
  - tomlock 8y ago
    If you presuppose that the category is absurd, the submission of an absurd paper is a vacuous act that proves nothing, and your point should be able to be easily demonstrated by your knowledge of the field as it stands.
- darawk 8y ago
  HN limits reply depth, so i'll reply here: > If you presuppose that the category is absurd, the submission of an absurd paper is a vacuous act that proves nothing, and your point should be able to be easily demonstrated by your knowledge of the field as it stands. It is my opinion and the thesis of the paper, that the papers that they got accepted to these journals is absurd. I will quote here the theses description of the 7 accepted papers: Sure, most got rejected. But 7 got accepted. And while banality is obviously a subjective value judgment, I don't think it applies to all of them. Just to enumerate the hypotheses that were accepted: > That dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against “the oppressed dog” through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured. This provides insight into training men out of the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone. > That it is only oppressive cultural norms which make society regard the building of muscle rather than fat admirable and that bodybuilding and activism on behalf of the fat could be benefited by including fat bodies displayed in non-competitive ways. > That it is suspicious that men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys, and that this is probably due to fear of being thought homosexual (“homohysteria”) and bigotry against trans people (transphobia). (It combines these ideas into a novel concept “transhysteria,” which was suggested by one of the paper’s peer reviewers.) Encouraging them to engage in receptive penetrative anal eroticism will decrease transphobia and increase feminist values. > That men frequent “breasturants” like Hooters because they are nostalgic for patriarchal dominance and enjoy being able to order attractive women around. The environment that breastaurants provide for facilitating this encourages men to identify sexual objectification and sexual conquest, along with masculine toughness and male dominance, with “authentic masculinity.” The data are clearly nonsense and conclusions drawn from it are unwarranted by it. (NB. One reviewer did raise concerns about the rigor of the data) > That academic hoaxes or other forms of satirical or ironic critique of social justice scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege. > No clear thesis. A rambling poetic monologue of a bitter, divorced feminist, much of which was produced by a teenage angst poetry generator before being edited into something slightly more “realistic” which is then interspersed with self-indulgent autoethnographical reflections on female sexuality and spirituality written entirely in slightly under six hours. > That feminism which foregrounds individual choice and responsibility and female agency and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society. I'll grant you that two of them, the 'breasturants' and Mein Kampf are relatively mild on the absurdity scale. The rest, in my view, are self-evidently ridiculous and/or unethical. If you disagree, feel free to explain why.