4 ms·

> submits bogus papers to obscure open access channels to discredit "feminism" and "the left" when they get published. I think you missed the point. > The wor

> submits bogus papers to obscure open access channels to discredit "feminism" and "the left" when they get published. I think you missed the point. > The work is largely in the same vein as what you'll see out of Project Veritas. I'm not sure what you're point is here? > "PC" and "SJW" are largely swapped out with "woke" in discourse. Again - not sure what point you are trying to make here. Words and meanings change over time.

badRNG 5y ago
>I think you missed the point. >I'm not sure what you're point is here? The point is that Boghossian has built his brand over the past decade as an "anti-SJW" thought-leader and has used methods like the Sokal hoax to create stories that seem scandalous on the surface, and fall somewhere on the spectrum of dishonesty upon closer inspection, like Project Veritas often does (e.g. getting one of hundreds of your submissions published in an obscure open access journal doesn't prove what your readers think it proves on the surface.) >Again - not sure what point you are trying to make here. Words and meanings change over time. PC and SJW fell out of favor as time went on. The dishonesty in the discourse in the so-called "anti-PC" crowd around trigger warnings, "safe spaces", and gay rights is plainly obvious at this point, to the degree that it's hard to be taken seriously using these talking points, and terms like "PC" and "SJW" fell out of fashion accordingly. The discourse around so-called "wokeness" seems to also suffer from some of the same issues, though it may take time for that to become as obvious as it is now with the former.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > methods like the Sokal hoax to create stories that seem scandalous on the surface No, it doesn't seem scandalous "on the surface." If you are in a field with so called "peer reviewed research" and someone can publish complete made up bullshit, then your entire field of study is garbage. You see these morons complain about his tactics, but you never see them fight back in kind. That's because you would never be able to get bullshit through the peer review process in physics, because it's, you know, real.
  - badRNG 5y ago
    > If you are in a field with so called "peer reviewed research" and someone can publish complete made up bullshit, then your entire field of study is garbage. The problem is, that's simply not what's happening. Boghossian isn't getting published in any large or reputable journals. He's getting articles published in tiny obscure open access journals. His paper has repeatedly, consistently failed peer review in academic journals. If I published a logically incorrect math proof in some obscure journal no one has ever heard of, I haven't "disproved math." To claim I did so would be deeply dishonest.
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      I believe the point he is making, is that any old BS can be published, which is then picked up by the "woke" crowd and used in their citations...therefore highlighting that their citations are generally nonsense.
      - not_kurt_godel 5y ago
        That point is incorrect given he's not meeting the standard of "published" in real journals.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        To show their citations are generally nonsense he would have had to do some analysis to prove this. Having fraudulent papers accepted to low impact, open access journals doesn’t exactly prove much of anything in a general sense.
    - wayneftw 5y ago
      > The problem is, that's simply not what's happening. Boghossian isn't getting published in any large or reputable journals. He got published in journals that are used to teach at his school. > If I published a logically incorrect math proof in some obscure journal no one has ever heard of, I haven't "disproved math." Yet another strawman. Nowhere in the article did the professor claim to have disproved an entire field of study.
    - 5y ago
Barrin92 5y ago
their point is that a university hasn't really any reason to accommodate someone who publishes low quality research, which seems pretty straight forward.

badRNG 5y ago

>I think you missed the point. >I'm not sure what you're point is here? The point is that Boghossian has built his brand over the past decade as an "anti-SJW" thought-leader and has used methods like the Sokal hoax to create stories that seem scandalous on the surface, and fall somewhere on the spectrum of dishonesty upon closer inspection, like Project Veritas often does (e.g. getting one of hundreds of your submissions published in an obscure open access journal doesn't prove what your readers think it proves on the surface.) >Again - not sure what point you are trying to make here. Words and meanings change over time. PC and SJW fell out of favor as time went on. The dishonesty in the discourse in the so-called "anti-PC" crowd around trigger warnings, "safe spaces", and gay rights is plainly obvious at this point, to the degree that it's hard to be taken seriously using these talking points, and terms like "PC" and "SJW" fell out of fashion accordingly. The discourse around so-called "wokeness" seems to also suffer from some of the same issues, though it may take time for that to become as obvious as it is now with the former.

fallingknife 5y ago
> methods like the Sokal hoax to create stories that seem scandalous on the surface No, it doesn't seem scandalous "on the surface." If you are in a field with so called "peer reviewed research" and someone can publish complete made up bullshit, then your entire field of study is garbage. You see these morons complain about his tactics, but you never see them fight back in kind. That's because you would never be able to get bullshit through the peer review process in physics, because it's, you know, real.
- badRNG 5y ago
  > If you are in a field with so called "peer reviewed research" and someone can publish complete made up bullshit, then your entire field of study is garbage. The problem is, that's simply not what's happening. Boghossian isn't getting published in any large or reputable journals. He's getting articles published in tiny obscure open access journals. His paper has repeatedly, consistently failed peer review in academic journals. If I published a logically incorrect math proof in some obscure journal no one has ever heard of, I haven't "disproved math." To claim I did so would be deeply dishonest.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    I believe the point he is making, is that any old BS can be published, which is then picked up by the "woke" crowd and used in their citations...therefore highlighting that their citations are generally nonsense.
    - not_kurt_godel 5y ago
      That point is incorrect given he's not meeting the standard of "published" in real journals.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      To show their citations are generally nonsense he would have had to do some analysis to prove this. Having fraudulent papers accepted to low impact, open access journals doesn’t exactly prove much of anything in a general sense.
  - wayneftw 5y ago
    > The problem is, that's simply not what's happening. Boghossian isn't getting published in any large or reputable journals. He got published in journals that are used to teach at his school. > If I published a logically incorrect math proof in some obscure journal no one has ever heard of, I haven't "disproved math." Yet another strawman. Nowhere in the article did the professor claim to have disproved an entire field of study.
  - 5y ago

Barrin92 5y ago

their point is that a university hasn't really any reason to accommodate someone who publishes low quality research, which seems pretty straight forward.