3 ms·

If I published something in any of the innumerable scientific 'journals' that bombard my spam box, I could probably publish whatever I liked. That doesn't mean

If I published something in any of the innumerable scientific 'journals' that bombard my spam box, I could probably publish whatever I liked. That doesn't mean I can say science is methodologically flawed. The humanities, no doubt, deserve criticism, but I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day, by people who don't even understand the field at the most basic level. How would they know? Why would they care? It strikes me as embarrassing for everybody involved- embarrassing, to publish something without properly vetting it, embarrassing, to dismiss something as nonsense without actually having the measure of it, embarrassing, to be so enthusiastic about this kind of 'proof', which so obviously combines ignorance with arrogance. There is no such thing as grievance studies. Critical theory has nothing to do with identity. The whole thing is about as close to the mark as Pat Buchanan's critique of feminism, and about as clever. In short, depressing.

hnuser123456 8y ago
According to the little bit I've read about this, some of the publishing journals are/were fairly well regarded (which would be a self-serving claim by this group.) The "success" of those stories says more about the individual publication than the entire fields they represent. At most, it is a critique of some niches of otherwise valid fields. At best, it's a nice reminder to pursue nothing but objectivity. There are still worthy results from the fields involved, maybe even these publications, and there will continue to be more. Amongst the embarrassing amateurishness of it all, and the obvious conclusions, I found it interesting how commonly reviewer comments used the word "exciting" in response to the "Going in Through the Back Door" paper.
_jal 8y ago
> I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day You answer your own question. While the methods may claim to be "defending science", the goals are political.

hnuser123456 8y ago

According to the little bit I've read about this, some of the publishing journals are/were fairly well regarded (which would be a self-serving claim by this group.) The "success" of those stories says more about the individual publication than the entire fields they represent. At most, it is a critique of some niches of otherwise valid fields. At best, it's a nice reminder to pursue nothing but objectivity. There are still worthy results from the fields involved, maybe even these publications, and there will continue to be more. Amongst the embarrassing amateurishness of it all, and the obvious conclusions, I found it interesting how commonly reviewer comments used the word "exciting" in response to the "Going in Through the Back Door" paper.

_jal 8y ago

> I honestly don't see the appeal of stunts designed to 'prove' that a certain field is not worth the time of day You answer your own question. While the methods may claim to be "defending science", the goals are political.