4 ms·

> 2) their experiment was poorly designed. On their first attempt of their papers got ejected, so they polished and resubmitted them. What is their exact scient

> 2) their experiment was poorly designed. On their first attempt of their papers got ejected, so they polished and resubmitted them. What is their exact scientific theory? They've outlined this. There is a specific Grievance Studies nomenclature and orthodoxy which the first papers did not adhere to. When they republished and resubmitted, they followed the Orthodoxy and they got through. That IS the scientific method. You run an experiment, observe the results. You tweak a few variables and see what happens under those conditions. It’s what distinguishes their work from Grievance Scholarship, where you know the conclusion you want before you start. > Maybe some part of Mein Kampf are actually useful valid statements to make. Um?

CJefferson 8y ago
Let's pick a random bit of Mein Kampf (I just scrolled to a random page in the middle in a randomly chosen translation). This looks, to me, like something that wouldn't be out of place in any discussion of "Fake News". This is the problem with using bits of Mein Kampf, it feels designed to shock and offend. If I got this text below into an article in a major newspaper, would that make that newspaper fundamentally broken / untrustworthy, because it happens to come, word for word, from Mein Kampf? Quote begins: Just in journalistic circles one usually prefers to call the press a 'great power' of the State. As a matter of fact its importance is truly enormous. It cannot be overestimated ; it is indeed actually the continuation of the education of youth in advanced age. Thereby one can divide the readers as a whole into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Secondly, those who no longer believe anything; Thirdly, those who critically examine what they have read and judge accordingly.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Of course. "We quoted Mein Kampf and were praised for it" is a nice piece of rhetorical engineering. Monstrous arguments are often assembled from tiny units which may be unobjectionable individually. The implication that the journal editors failed to notice the evil taint of Nazism from short extracts is nonsense. But the whole hoax is entirely political. The authors disapprove of what they call "Grievance Studies" and they wanted to call that out. Which is fine as far as it goes, but as others have pointed out, it's not as if the SNR in other disciplines is perfect. There's a huge amount of bullshit everywhere in academia - from theoretical physics to medicine to economics to computer science. [1] Going Sokal proves nothing at all this point. We already know peer review doesn't work very well, because academia is now driven by financial and economic pressures more than it's driven by a noble quest for knowledge and wisdom. Ironically the "grievance studies" people have done a better - albeit still slanted and ineffectual - job of pointing this out than the entire peer review system has. [1] http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414 http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scien...

CJefferson 8y ago

Let's pick a random bit of Mein Kampf (I just scrolled to a random page in the middle in a randomly chosen translation). This looks, to me, like something that wouldn't be out of place in any discussion of "Fake News". This is the problem with using bits of Mein Kampf, it feels designed to shock and offend. If I got this text below into an article in a major newspaper, would that make that newspaper fundamentally broken / untrustworthy, because it happens to come, word for word, from Mein Kampf? Quote begins: Just in journalistic circles one usually prefers to call the press a 'great power' of the State. As a matter of fact its importance is truly enormous. It cannot be overestimated ; it is indeed actually the continuation of the education of youth in advanced age. Thereby one can divide the readers as a whole into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Secondly, those who no longer believe anything; Thirdly, those who critically examine what they have read and judge accordingly.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Of course. "We quoted Mein Kampf and were praised for it" is a nice piece of rhetorical engineering. Monstrous arguments are often assembled from tiny units which may be unobjectionable individually. The implication that the journal editors failed to notice the evil taint of Nazism from short extracts is nonsense. But the whole hoax is entirely political. The authors disapprove of what they call "Grievance Studies" and they wanted to call that out. Which is fine as far as it goes, but as others have pointed out, it's not as if the SNR in other disciplines is perfect. There's a huge amount of bullshit everywhere in academia - from theoretical physics to medicine to economics to computer science. [1] Going Sokal proves nothing at all this point. We already know peer review doesn't work very well, because academia is now driven by financial and economic pressures more than it's driven by a noble quest for knowledge and wisdom. Ironically the "grievance studies" people have done a better - albeit still slanted and ineffectual - job of pointing this out than the entire peer review system has. [1] http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414 http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scien...