4 ms·

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

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...

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...