3 ms·

>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"

by 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.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    If it was only obscure journals that no one reads, then I agree, but my understanding was that this is not the case.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      The journals were: - "Gender, Place and Culture" - Open Access - IF 1.5 - https://genderplaceandculture.wordpress.com/about/ https://genderplaceandculture.wordpress.com/about/ - "Hypatia" - Open Access - IF 0.781 - https://hypatiaphilosophy.org https://hypatiaphilosophy.org - "Fat Studies" - Open Access - IF 1.13 - https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/current - "Cogent Social Sciences" - Open Access - IF 1.0 - https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/oass20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/oass20/current So yes, it appears he published his papers in small open access journals with little impact.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >That's because you would never be able to get bullshit through the peer review process in physics, are you sure about that?[1]. Some journal accepting a bullshit paper proves exactly one thing, that likely one individual or a small group of people had bad judgement. I'm not sure how one publicity stunt is supposed to destroy an entire field of research. That's just your own preconceived bias talking, and it's actually why these hoaxes are just stupid. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-paper-written-by-ios-autocomplete-accepted-for-conference https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-pap...
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Did you read the article you linked? It has nothing to do with peer-reviewed publication in physics journals. It’s just another fake conference that automatically prints submitted abstracts (as do many real conferences). I get a different invitation every week or two to submit papers to these things. This week it’s some energy conference in Turkey (today was my “last chance” after ignoring their five previous emails). It means nothing.

by badRNG 5y ago

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.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  If it was only obscure journals that no one reads, then I agree, but my understanding was that this is not the case.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    The journals were: - "Gender, Place and Culture" - Open Access - IF 1.5 - https://genderplaceandculture.wordpress.com/about/ https://genderplaceandculture.wordpress.com/about/ - "Hypatia" - Open Access - IF 0.781 - https://hypatiaphilosophy.org https://hypatiaphilosophy.org - "Fat Studies" - Open Access - IF 1.13 - https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/current - "Cogent Social Sciences" - Open Access - IF 1.0 - https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/oass20/current https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/oass20/current So yes, it appears he published his papers in small open access journals with little impact.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 5y ago
>That's because you would never be able to get bullshit through the peer review process in physics, are you sure about that?[1]. Some journal accepting a bullshit paper proves exactly one thing, that likely one individual or a small group of people had bad judgement. I'm not sure how one publicity stunt is supposed to destroy an entire field of research. That's just your own preconceived bias talking, and it's actually why these hoaxes are just stupid. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-paper-written-by-ios-autocomplete-accepted-for-conference https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-pap...
- leephillips 5y ago
  Did you read the article you linked? It has nothing to do with peer-reviewed publication in physics journals. It’s just another fake conference that automatically prints submitted abstracts (as do many real conferences). I get a different invitation every week or two to submit papers to these things. This week it’s some energy conference in Turkey (today was my “last chance” after ignoring their five previous emails). It means nothing.