3 ms·

Considering that you're advocating for rigorous empirical standards, and considering that in the case of economics, a full THIRD of articles submitted to two to

Considering that you're advocating for rigorous empirical standards, and considering that in the case of economics, a full THIRD of articles submitted to two top tier economics journals could not be replicated, which is quite similar to the 7/20 article admissions rate these hoaxers managed, what empirical evidence do you have that suggests this is outside the norm for a multitude of disciplines not necessarily related to your area of examination? I'm really glad you're now saying that you just have the opinion that these papers and disciplines are absurd, because I'd consider that claim, stated as a fact, to be the realm of experts in the field. Presupposing the discipline is absurd would require you to have a deep knowledge of the field, which I'm not seeing much evidence of, here.

darawk 8y ago
> Considering that you're advocating for rigorous empirical standards Where did I do that? > I'm really glad you're now saying that you just have the opinion that these papers and disciplines are absurd, because I'd consider that claim, stated as a fact, to be the realm of experts in the field. Presupposing the discipline is absurd would require you to have a deep knowledge of the field, which I'm not seeing much evidence of, here. You seem to have missed the point of their exercise. The point of their exercise is that the entire field is intellectually bankrupt. To say that the only people who can deem the field intellectually bankrupt are its members is fairly silly. Just read the papers. They're ridiculous. You've provided no defense whatsoever of their content.
- tomlock 8y ago
  So you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards? You've come into this article, which only has evidence that papers written in bad faith can be accepted by peer-reviewed journals (trivial), already presupposing that the field is intellectually bankrupt. In order for me to believe you have the ability to make that judgement, I must also believe that you understand the field. People can be experts in fields without being a member of that field. You have fallen prey to the same false ideological purity you seem to have deemed yourself fit to criticize in others. Since you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards, I can only assume you feel the article we're commenting on was pretty pointless. And let's be real here, this article didn't effect your view either way. We're done here.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > In order for me to believe you have the ability to make that judgement, I must also believe that you understand the field. I'm not asking you to believe my judgment. Judge for yourself. Evaluate the content. > Since you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards, I can only assume you feel the article we're commenting on was pretty pointless. And let's be real here, this article didn't effect your view either way. We're done here. I could say the same of you, without loss of generality. You could easily have tried to make the case that the papers here weren't absurd at all, but you didn't. You never tried to do that, you simply tried to obfuscate and hide. It's easier than making a real point, I guess. In fact, you haven't even stated your position clearly in this entire discussion. You've carefully avoided actually saying "I don't believe these papers are absurd, and I do not believe the acceptance of them by these journals should make us at all skeptical of gender studies as a field". So, go ahead. State your position. I've stated mine.

darawk 8y ago

> Considering that you're advocating for rigorous empirical standards Where did I do that? > I'm really glad you're now saying that you just have the opinion that these papers and disciplines are absurd, because I'd consider that claim, stated as a fact, to be the realm of experts in the field. Presupposing the discipline is absurd would require you to have a deep knowledge of the field, which I'm not seeing much evidence of, here. You seem to have missed the point of their exercise. The point of their exercise is that the entire field is intellectually bankrupt. To say that the only people who can deem the field intellectually bankrupt are its members is fairly silly. Just read the papers. They're ridiculous. You've provided no defense whatsoever of their content.

tomlock 8y ago
So you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards? You've come into this article, which only has evidence that papers written in bad faith can be accepted by peer-reviewed journals (trivial), already presupposing that the field is intellectually bankrupt. In order for me to believe you have the ability to make that judgement, I must also believe that you understand the field. People can be experts in fields without being a member of that field. You have fallen prey to the same false ideological purity you seem to have deemed yourself fit to criticize in others. Since you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards, I can only assume you feel the article we're commenting on was pretty pointless. And let's be real here, this article didn't effect your view either way. We're done here.
- darawk 8y ago
  > In order for me to believe you have the ability to make that judgement, I must also believe that you understand the field. I'm not asking you to believe my judgment. Judge for yourself. Evaluate the content. > Since you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards, I can only assume you feel the article we're commenting on was pretty pointless. And let's be real here, this article didn't effect your view either way. We're done here. I could say the same of you, without loss of generality. You could easily have tried to make the case that the papers here weren't absurd at all, but you didn't. You never tried to do that, you simply tried to obfuscate and hide. It's easier than making a real point, I guess. In fact, you haven't even stated your position clearly in this entire discussion. You've carefully avoided actually saying "I don't believe these papers are absurd, and I do not believe the acceptance of them by these journals should make us at all skeptical of gender studies as a field". So, go ahead. State your position. I've stated mine.