8 ms·

This took me a minute and a second read, for anyone else who was similarly confused: > The review board also determined that the hoax project met the definitio

This took me a minute and a second read, for anyone else who was similarly confused: > The review board also determined that the hoax project met the definition for human-subjects research because it involved interacting with journal editors and reviewers The university's basically saying that the project itself is the problem, not the individual articles themselves. As the author stated, the goal was to: > "to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research" which is a behavioral research meta-study involving humans (in this case, journal reviewers and editors). Of course, behavioral research involving humans almost always requires IRB approval. I realize on a third reading this is stated pretty clearly ("the hoax project met.."), but took me a minute nonetheless.

tomlock 8y ago
> which is corrupting academic research Considering this paper was presumably hoping to bring about better standards in academia, how is this claim supported by the hoax AKA experiment?
- naasking 8y ago
  They were trying to demonstrate that this field uses no rigourous empirical methods, and that the reviewers and editors apparently have no knowledge or understanding of how to check for bias or even validate empirical data that's presented. The hoax authors checked this in multiple ways by reporting data with very specific, obvious biases that would never pass review in other fields, to see if any of the reviewers or editors would catch the obvious bullshit. They did not, across 7 published papers thus far IIRC. In fact, the hoax authors even told the publishers they couldn't provide the raw data because it had been printed out on paper that had then been recycled. Publisher's response: sure, no problem, we'll publish anyway. In fact, many academics in this field argue that science, logic and math are themselves corrupt enterprises of oppression. As such, they remain wilfully ignorant of these biases and proper statistical methods. All told, would you consider this a corruption of academic research?
  - tomlock 8y ago
    > They were trying to demonstrate that this field uses no rigourous empirical methods, and that the reviewers and editors apparently have no knowledge or understanding of how to check for bias or even validate empirical data that's presented. The hoax authors checked this in multiple ways by reporting data with very specific, obvious biases that would never pass review in other fields, Let me stop you right there. The replication crisis has shown repeatedly, across disciplines that have testable hypotheses, that bad articles are accepted in academic journals. > In fact, many academics in this field argue that science, logic and math are themselves corrupt enterprises of oppression. I'm assuming you're talking about the conclusion many have drawn - which I think is pretty uncontroversial - that science, logic and math are not fields free from bias. We only have to got back to relatively recent history to encounter periods when women were excluded from universities and phrenology was considered science. Unfortunately I think what you might mean is that people in "this field" (what field?) think science should be entirely thrown out. You'll struggle to show that more than a tiny majority (please quantify in your response) of people in any field (even theology) saying that science is in itself a "corrupt enterprise".
    - naasking 8y ago
      > Let me stop you right there. The replication crisis has shown repeatedly, across disciplines that have testable hypotheses, that bad articles are accepted in academic journals. The replication problem is worse the less rigourous the field. The hoax authors managed to publish their first 7 articles, with 20 more still in review IIRC, over the span of 10 months. They were quite confident that the rest would have gone through had some journalists not prematurely unearthed their subterfuge. For instance, in the dog park paper, the authors claimed that they had inspected the genitals of 10,000 unique dogs in a single dog park over a short time span, and then questioned the dog owners on their sexual orientation. If you can even look past the absurdity and take it seriously, the sample being analyzed is clearly biased in various ways. What dog park would have 10,000 unique dogs and owners visiting in such a time frame? How is this a representative sample? What sort of owners would be open to strangers fondling their pet's genitals and then questioning their sexuality? Each paper had distinct and meaningful bias or clear cherry picking injected into the data, and not a single one of them was caught in review. The hoax authors have emphatically claimed that this field is more akin to theology than any kind of meaningful science, where any paper that reinforces the orthodoxy gets published, no matter the methodological flaws, and that's what they attempted to demonstrate (and they did I think). This result is far, far worse than the replication crisis. > I'm assuming you're talking about the conclusion many have drawn - which I think is pretty uncontroversial - that science, logic and math are not fields free from bias. No, I mean quite literally that these "academics" think that the scientific method, and that logic and mathematics itself, are tools of white oppression. I won't vouch for the rest of the site, but the description presented here is a decent introduction to the "reasoning" they employ: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_scientific_method_is_racist_.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_scienti... Edit: or just google "the scientific method is oppressive" if you want to find further evidence. There are thousands of papers, articles, blogs and posts debating this claim. See: https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/the-science-march-sparked-a-big-argument-about-objectivity.html https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/the-science-march-sparked-a-b...
- emmelaich 8y ago
  Ridicule is not the most collegial method of criticism, but it can be very effective. And I think here it's the only possible one. Can you seriously imagine the journal accepting an article even slightly negative about the field?
  - tomlock 8y ago
    > And I think here it's the only possible one. > Can you seriously imagine the journal accepting an article even slightly negative about the field? There are plenty of critiques of these disciplines that come from within. For people with a deep understanding of these fields, there is nuance in them, and argument. From outside, perhaps they seem entirely cohesive. The truth is it is entirely possible, specifically in philosophy and gender studies, two subjects I've worked in at a postgraduate level, to find progress and disagreement, even with hints of ridicule! Hell, I've been exceptionally critical of some popular views in those fields and come out the other side unscathed. But the difference between those critiques and the Sokal Squared caper is that it doesn't offer any meaningful critique of the field. > which is corrupting academic research This is a politically-motivated, biased leap to a conclusion that the hoax doesn't support. All the hoax showed is that bad papers can get accepted in academic journals in these fields. We can add those journals to the list of journals in the fields of medicine and psychology that have similar problems.
    - guitarbill 8y ago
      > But the difference between those critiques and the Sokal Squared caper is that it doesn't offer any meaningful critique of the field. That would seem to depend on your point of view. Seems quite meaningful to me, although I agree following up with how could this have been prevented and what to do differently in future would be a better discussion than the current one.
      - tomlock 8y ago
        Yeah, this paper just lead to name-calling, which I think indicates that it was not out to really do anything, but to appeal to certain narratives. Additionally, its main demonstration is that bad papers can be accepted by journals, which we know is also true of many other fields. But, I'm pretty sure the authors wouldn't consider medical journals as members of "grievance studies".

tomlock 8y ago

> which is corrupting academic research Considering this paper was presumably hoping to bring about better standards in academia, how is this claim supported by the hoax AKA experiment?

naasking 8y ago
They were trying to demonstrate that this field uses no rigourous empirical methods, and that the reviewers and editors apparently have no knowledge or understanding of how to check for bias or even validate empirical data that's presented. The hoax authors checked this in multiple ways by reporting data with very specific, obvious biases that would never pass review in other fields, to see if any of the reviewers or editors would catch the obvious bullshit. They did not, across 7 published papers thus far IIRC. In fact, the hoax authors even told the publishers they couldn't provide the raw data because it had been printed out on paper that had then been recycled. Publisher's response: sure, no problem, we'll publish anyway. In fact, many academics in this field argue that science, logic and math are themselves corrupt enterprises of oppression. As such, they remain wilfully ignorant of these biases and proper statistical methods. All told, would you consider this a corruption of academic research?
- tomlock 8y ago
  > They were trying to demonstrate that this field uses no rigourous empirical methods, and that the reviewers and editors apparently have no knowledge or understanding of how to check for bias or even validate empirical data that's presented. The hoax authors checked this in multiple ways by reporting data with very specific, obvious biases that would never pass review in other fields, Let me stop you right there. The replication crisis has shown repeatedly, across disciplines that have testable hypotheses, that bad articles are accepted in academic journals. > In fact, many academics in this field argue that science, logic and math are themselves corrupt enterprises of oppression. I'm assuming you're talking about the conclusion many have drawn - which I think is pretty uncontroversial - that science, logic and math are not fields free from bias. We only have to got back to relatively recent history to encounter periods when women were excluded from universities and phrenology was considered science. Unfortunately I think what you might mean is that people in "this field" (what field?) think science should be entirely thrown out. You'll struggle to show that more than a tiny majority (please quantify in your response) of people in any field (even theology) saying that science is in itself a "corrupt enterprise".
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Let me stop you right there. The replication crisis has shown repeatedly, across disciplines that have testable hypotheses, that bad articles are accepted in academic journals. The replication problem is worse the less rigourous the field. The hoax authors managed to publish their first 7 articles, with 20 more still in review IIRC, over the span of 10 months. They were quite confident that the rest would have gone through had some journalists not prematurely unearthed their subterfuge. For instance, in the dog park paper, the authors claimed that they had inspected the genitals of 10,000 unique dogs in a single dog park over a short time span, and then questioned the dog owners on their sexual orientation. If you can even look past the absurdity and take it seriously, the sample being analyzed is clearly biased in various ways. What dog park would have 10,000 unique dogs and owners visiting in such a time frame? How is this a representative sample? What sort of owners would be open to strangers fondling their pet's genitals and then questioning their sexuality? Each paper had distinct and meaningful bias or clear cherry picking injected into the data, and not a single one of them was caught in review. The hoax authors have emphatically claimed that this field is more akin to theology than any kind of meaningful science, where any paper that reinforces the orthodoxy gets published, no matter the methodological flaws, and that's what they attempted to demonstrate (and they did I think). This result is far, far worse than the replication crisis. > I'm assuming you're talking about the conclusion many have drawn - which I think is pretty uncontroversial - that science, logic and math are not fields free from bias. No, I mean quite literally that these "academics" think that the scientific method, and that logic and mathematics itself, are tools of white oppression. I won't vouch for the rest of the site, but the description presented here is a decent introduction to the "reasoning" they employ: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_scientific_method_is_racist_.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_scienti... Edit: or just google "the scientific method is oppressive" if you want to find further evidence. There are thousands of papers, articles, blogs and posts debating this claim. See: https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/the-science-march-sparked-a-big-argument-about-objectivity.html https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/the-science-march-sparked-a-b...
emmelaich 8y ago
Ridicule is not the most collegial method of criticism, but it can be very effective. And I think here it's the only possible one. Can you seriously imagine the journal accepting an article even slightly negative about the field?
- tomlock 8y ago
  > And I think here it's the only possible one. > Can you seriously imagine the journal accepting an article even slightly negative about the field? There are plenty of critiques of these disciplines that come from within. For people with a deep understanding of these fields, there is nuance in them, and argument. From outside, perhaps they seem entirely cohesive. The truth is it is entirely possible, specifically in philosophy and gender studies, two subjects I've worked in at a postgraduate level, to find progress and disagreement, even with hints of ridicule! Hell, I've been exceptionally critical of some popular views in those fields and come out the other side unscathed. But the difference between those critiques and the Sokal Squared caper is that it doesn't offer any meaningful critique of the field. > which is corrupting academic research This is a politically-motivated, biased leap to a conclusion that the hoax doesn't support. All the hoax showed is that bad papers can get accepted in academic journals in these fields. We can add those journals to the list of journals in the fields of medicine and psychology that have similar problems.
  - guitarbill 8y ago
    > But the difference between those critiques and the Sokal Squared caper is that it doesn't offer any meaningful critique of the field. That would seem to depend on your point of view. Seems quite meaningful to me, although I agree following up with how could this have been prevented and what to do differently in future would be a better discussion than the current one.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      Yeah, this paper just lead to name-calling, which I think indicates that it was not out to really do anything, but to appeal to certain narratives. Additionally, its main demonstration is that bad papers can be accepted by journals, which we know is also true of many other fields. But, I'm pretty sure the authors wouldn't consider medical journals as members of "grievance studies".