5 ms·

> 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

> 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. Interesting claim, considering https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/is-the-best-evidence-for-austerity-based-on-an-excel-spreadsheet-error/?utm_term=.6494a4515b12 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/is-th... It is interesting to me that sometimes people seem to argue that the "grievance studies" subjects are useless practically, and then in the next sentence to argue they have a massive impact on other disciplines. In fields like economics we can, however, often see and measure the effects directly. And the effects of the orthodoxy that wants to justify, in this case austerity, using bad papers, with publically available data, that anyone could have checked, is far worse than the sokal squared hoax. > No, I mean quite literally that these "academics" think that the scientific method, and that logic and mathematics itself, are tools of white oppression. > There are thousands of papers, articles, blogs and posts debating this claim. The first article you linked quotes an orientation video. The second rests on the "feminist glaciology" paper, which I've seen parroted by the right as an example of this claim you're making, many, many times, and another article posted on a website. I might be justified in asking you to provide evidence that "thousands" of papers defending the claim that "the scientific method is oppressive" but I don't expect you to, or be able to, defend that statement. Lets focus on a smaller scope, and try to prove that there exist papers in the two articles you've linked here that make that claim. People who read these papers often make the mistake of reading an argument against all knowledge by conflating a few things: 1) That the institution of science represents pure infallible access to scientific knowledge 2) That objective truth is equivalent to, and accessed by scientific knowledge We only have to go back a short period of time to see scientific justifications of awful things. But, the vast majority of academics aren't arguing that we should discard all of science. And, anyone can make a blog post. Objective truth is always necessarily filtered through humans. It is also a good point that scientists should listen to indigenous people and their theories about natural phenomena. There are many examples of scientists correlating myths and stories with natural events and discovering that there was an eruption at a particular time. Understanding those perspectives advances science.

naasking 8y ago
> Interesting claim, considering https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/is-th.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/is-th.... False equivalency. A single calculation error is not the same as a whole field that eschews scientific methodology. Which isn't to say that other fields don't suffer from biases and errors as well, but they have processes in place to rectify them, and your article points out exactly how this happens. Notice how it took a hoax to point out that there's a problem with grievances studies. That's a bad sign that the methodology and/or culture is fundamentally flawed. > It is interesting to me that sometimes people seem to argue that the "grievance studies" subjects are useless practically, and then in the next sentence to argue they have a massive impact on other disciplines That's not inconsistent. For the sake of argument, suppose grievance studies argues for affirmative action and hiring quotes to counter innate bias. Suppose that companies buy into this, and implement such policies. Now suppose that such measures are actually impossible to implement in practice, and are illegally discriminatory. All of these can be true simultaneously (and probably are true at this present time), which makes grievance studies a) practically useless, b) have a massive impact, and c) harmful. I think an even stronger case can be made in fact, but this thread is long enough as it is. > And the effects of the orthodoxy that wants to justify, in this case austerity, using bad papers, with publically available data, that anyone could have checked, is far worse than the sokal squared hoax. Maybe, but that doesn't somehow negate the harm from grievance studies, any more than the existence of genital mutilation of women abroad somehow negates any milder forms of sexism that might still exist in the west. > I might be justified in asking you to provide evidence that "thousands" of papers defending the claim that "the scientific method is oppressive" but I don't expect you to, or be able to, defend that statement. Interesting strawman. You've alleged that I said there are thousands of papers that are making this claim, rather than what I actually said, which is that there are thousands of papers, articles, blogs and posts that have debated this claim. The latter is easily verified by looking at google search results without even going into the academic literature. The former is a clear attempt at casting me as unreasonable making absurd and overreaching claims. > We only have to go back a short period of time to see scientific justifications of awful things. There is no legitimate "scientific justification" for awful things. Certainly some people have claimed scientific justification for awful things, but that does not entail that such justification actually exists. > But, the vast majority of academics aren't arguing that we should discard all of science. I agree. And yet, that doesn't negate the evidence that a particular academic field does advance claims that are equally dangerous, nor does it negate the evidence that such a field has influence that isn't congruent with the empirical evidence. > It is also a good point that scientists should listen to indigenous people and their theories about natural phenomena. There are many examples of scientists correlating myths and stories with natural events and discovering that there was an eruption at a particular time. Understanding those perspectives advances science. Except few people argue otherwise. Historians and geologists have connected mythical events to possible historical events countless times (see for instance, geomythology which was coined in 1968). That's a very different claim to saying that such myths should be given equal weight as demonstrable facts, and that science has no particularly unique or meaningful claim to truth about the natural world over other views. That's patently false. In fact, I'll make an even stronger claim and say that it's logically and mathematically false. Solomonoff Induction grounded scientific inquiry with a proof that it converges on the truth. No other process aside from math can demonstrably produce real truth. Of course, people deep in grievance-type fields disavow logic and math as well, and so they would find such proofs unconvincing.

naasking 8y ago

> Interesting claim, considering https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/is-th.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/is-th.... False equivalency. A single calculation error is not the same as a whole field that eschews scientific methodology. Which isn't to say that other fields don't suffer from biases and errors as well, but they have processes in place to rectify them, and your article points out exactly how this happens. Notice how it took a hoax to point out that there's a problem with grievances studies. That's a bad sign that the methodology and/or culture is fundamentally flawed. > It is interesting to me that sometimes people seem to argue that the "grievance studies" subjects are useless practically, and then in the next sentence to argue they have a massive impact on other disciplines That's not inconsistent. For the sake of argument, suppose grievance studies argues for affirmative action and hiring quotes to counter innate bias. Suppose that companies buy into this, and implement such policies. Now suppose that such measures are actually impossible to implement in practice, and are illegally discriminatory. All of these can be true simultaneously (and probably are true at this present time), which makes grievance studies a) practically useless, b) have a massive impact, and c) harmful. I think an even stronger case can be made in fact, but this thread is long enough as it is. > And the effects of the orthodoxy that wants to justify, in this case austerity, using bad papers, with publically available data, that anyone could have checked, is far worse than the sokal squared hoax. Maybe, but that doesn't somehow negate the harm from grievance studies, any more than the existence of genital mutilation of women abroad somehow negates any milder forms of sexism that might still exist in the west. > I might be justified in asking you to provide evidence that "thousands" of papers defending the claim that "the scientific method is oppressive" but I don't expect you to, or be able to, defend that statement. Interesting strawman. You've alleged that I said there are thousands of papers that are making this claim, rather than what I actually said, which is that there are thousands of papers, articles, blogs and posts that have debated this claim. The latter is easily verified by looking at google search results without even going into the academic literature. The former is a clear attempt at casting me as unreasonable making absurd and overreaching claims. > We only have to go back a short period of time to see scientific justifications of awful things. There is no legitimate "scientific justification" for awful things. Certainly some people have claimed scientific justification for awful things, but that does not entail that such justification actually exists. > But, the vast majority of academics aren't arguing that we should discard all of science. I agree. And yet, that doesn't negate the evidence that a particular academic field does advance claims that are equally dangerous, nor does it negate the evidence that such a field has influence that isn't congruent with the empirical evidence. > It is also a good point that scientists should listen to indigenous people and their theories about natural phenomena. There are many examples of scientists correlating myths and stories with natural events and discovering that there was an eruption at a particular time. Understanding those perspectives advances science. Except few people argue otherwise. Historians and geologists have connected mythical events to possible historical events countless times (see for instance, geomythology which was coined in 1968). That's a very different claim to saying that such myths should be given equal weight as demonstrable facts, and that science has no particularly unique or meaningful claim to truth about the natural world over other views. That's patently false. In fact, I'll make an even stronger claim and say that it's logically and mathematically false. Solomonoff Induction grounded scientific inquiry with a proof that it converges on the truth. No other process aside from math can demonstrably produce real truth. Of course, people deep in grievance-type fields disavow logic and math as well, and so they would find such proofs unconvincing.