6 ms·

I think its time to pin down what fields you believe are in "grievance studies" which is just name calling since... > A single calculation error is not the sam

I think its time to pin down what fields you believe are in "grievance studies" which is just name calling since... > 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. ...it seems you believe Art and Creative Writing are "grievance studies". And your claim was this was "far worse than the replication crisis"... how? Vast economic policy changes versus what, exactly? > That's not inconsistent. Yes it is - to claim that these academics (who are accused of being postmodern neomarxists) can recruit corporate, capitalist HR departments, but not recruit more students, is inconsistent. > Maybe, but that doesn't somehow negate the harm from grievance studies, What harm? What harm do you think is specifically proven by this hoax or any other paper? > 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. Sorry for misreading you. I thought you were making a non-trivial claim that people in academia were debating the scientific method. If you're making the claim that non-academics are debating a subject, that's a pretty trivial thing to say. Flat earth, anyone? > 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. Awesome, lets discuss all the "dangerous claims" that this academic field is making. This hoax has nothing to do with the field's "claims", but I'm happy to talk about specific claims in specific papers, and compare their acceptance and their magnitude. I would much prefer that discussion to one where we allude to a vast academic conspiracy that doesn't exist. > 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. See, here's the core of the point. If scientists and presumably, people like yourself, were so sure they'd found scientific knowledge previously, and it "didn't exist", couldn't the same doubt exist for the claims you make today? Who gets anointed to decide what scientific knowledge does, or does not, exist? Perhaps all these academics saying that we must be suspect of anyone who proclaims such a thing have a point. > 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. I'm happy to discuss papers that you think make those claims.

naasking 8y ago
> And your claim was this was "far worse than the replication crisis"... how? Vast economic policy changes versus what, exactly? "Far worse" does not entail these effects are in industry. I actually meant far worse for our body of knowledge and for academic credibility. Particularly since the US has taken a serious anti-academic pivot in the past 20 years. > Yes it is - to claim that these academics (who are accused of being postmodern neomarxists) can recruit corporate, capitalist HR departments, but not recruit more students, is inconsistent. It's not. HR departments are not populated by students, and the claim that they are capitalist is debatable. They were students at one point certainly, but the circumstances and mentalities of every generation of students differs. To claim there's an inconsistency is to claim you know why enrollment in these disciplines might be down (assuming it is), which you don't. And that tells you nothing about the influence of these subjects outside of academia. > What harm? What harm do you think is specifically proven by this hoax or any other paper? [...] This hoax has nothing to do with the field's "claims" Right, the hoax highlights the poor methodology common in this field, which is why the claims in this field should be viewed with extreme skepticism. The results from this field have guided a lot of policy, in government, in industry, and in academia. As but one example, Google has pushed a number of initiatives to improve diversity, initiatives that are logically impossible to implement and that are legally discriminatory (and for which they are now being sued). Harvard too with its admission policies. This pattern has repeated itself numerous times. > I thought you were making a non-trivial claim that people in academia were debating the scientific method. Some are, so you've misread me again. Read the article I cited which quotes McLean (thecut.com). > Awesome, lets discuss all the "dangerous claims" that this academic field is making. [...] but I'm happy to talk about specific claims in specific papers, and compare their acceptance and their magnitude. No thanks. Not only have I already done this numerous times and am loathe to yet again, it's also against HN rules to divert and prolong discussions in this fashion. We're probably already in violation by going on this long. This will probably be my last post. > If scientists and presumably, people like yourself, were so sure they'd found scientific knowledge previously, and it "didn't exist", couldn't the same doubt exist for the claims you make today? Denying facts in favour of fantasy is the only way to justify oppression and dehumanization. If you ask for evidence of any claim, either the evidence actually justifies those claims or it's specious and/or inconclusive, and the people advancing the claim are pushing an agenda rather than following the facts. I have never seen a single instance that did not follow this pattern. Furthermore, moral victories in society are largely driven by factual advances, by the questioning of existing circumstances and the discovery that things are not what was initially believed. For instance, refuting the divine right of kings, the illegitimacy of slavery, the equality of genders, all of them are hailed as grand moral victories, but the moral progress was achieved because people simply asked, upon what factual basis do we treat these classes of people differently? In every case, there has been no legitimate basis, and so those distinctions were torn down. Except we're now reaching a point where factual distinctions are themselves being torn down, because science itself is being questioned. Here be dragons.

naasking 8y ago

> And your claim was this was "far worse than the replication crisis"... how? Vast economic policy changes versus what, exactly? "Far worse" does not entail these effects are in industry. I actually meant far worse for our body of knowledge and for academic credibility. Particularly since the US has taken a serious anti-academic pivot in the past 20 years. > Yes it is - to claim that these academics (who are accused of being postmodern neomarxists) can recruit corporate, capitalist HR departments, but not recruit more students, is inconsistent. It's not. HR departments are not populated by students, and the claim that they are capitalist is debatable. They were students at one point certainly, but the circumstances and mentalities of every generation of students differs. To claim there's an inconsistency is to claim you know why enrollment in these disciplines might be down (assuming it is), which you don't. And that tells you nothing about the influence of these subjects outside of academia. > What harm? What harm do you think is specifically proven by this hoax or any other paper? [...] This hoax has nothing to do with the field's "claims" Right, the hoax highlights the poor methodology common in this field, which is why the claims in this field should be viewed with extreme skepticism. The results from this field have guided a lot of policy, in government, in industry, and in academia. As but one example, Google has pushed a number of initiatives to improve diversity, initiatives that are logically impossible to implement and that are legally discriminatory (and for which they are now being sued). Harvard too with its admission policies. This pattern has repeated itself numerous times. > I thought you were making a non-trivial claim that people in academia were debating the scientific method. Some are, so you've misread me again. Read the article I cited which quotes McLean (thecut.com). > Awesome, lets discuss all the "dangerous claims" that this academic field is making. [...] but I'm happy to talk about specific claims in specific papers, and compare their acceptance and their magnitude. No thanks. Not only have I already done this numerous times and am loathe to yet again, it's also against HN rules to divert and prolong discussions in this fashion. We're probably already in violation by going on this long. This will probably be my last post. > If scientists and presumably, people like yourself, were so sure they'd found scientific knowledge previously, and it "didn't exist", couldn't the same doubt exist for the claims you make today? Denying facts in favour of fantasy is the only way to justify oppression and dehumanization. If you ask for evidence of any claim, either the evidence actually justifies those claims or it's specious and/or inconclusive, and the people advancing the claim are pushing an agenda rather than following the facts. I have never seen a single instance that did not follow this pattern. Furthermore, moral victories in society are largely driven by factual advances, by the questioning of existing circumstances and the discovery that things are not what was initially believed. For instance, refuting the divine right of kings, the illegitimacy of slavery, the equality of genders, all of them are hailed as grand moral victories, but the moral progress was achieved because people simply asked, upon what factual basis do we treat these classes of people differently? In every case, there has been no legitimate basis, and so those distinctions were torn down. Except we're now reaching a point where factual distinctions are themselves being torn down, because science itself is being questioned. Here be dragons.