3 ms·

> 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

> 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".
emmelaich 8y ago
I meant this particular journal. I'm sure there is honest discussion within the field generally. This is not name-calling to pull this hoax. It's an demonstration (or experiment if you like). You can discuss all you like but at some point we need a demonstration. Nullius in verba 'n all that.
- tomlock 8y ago
  It doesn't demonstrate anything that isn't entirely comparable to the replication crisis, which stretches across many, many fields and many journals that the authors would almost certainly not call "grievance studies". It certainly doesn't demonstrate that there is any "corrupting academic research" going on.

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".

emmelaich 8y ago

I meant this particular journal. I'm sure there is honest discussion within the field generally. This is not name-calling to pull this hoax. It's an demonstration (or experiment if you like). You can discuss all you like but at some point we need a demonstration. Nullius in verba 'n all that.

tomlock 8y ago
It doesn't demonstrate anything that isn't entirely comparable to the replication crisis, which stretches across many, many fields and many journals that the authors would almost certainly not call "grievance studies". It certainly doesn't demonstrate that there is any "corrupting academic research" going on.