4 ms·

The more recent unofficial sequel to the Sokal Hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affa

The more recent unofficial sequel to the Sokal Hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

bondarchuk 3y ago
That one is a bit different because they simply fabricated observational data (in the dog park paper at least).
- asguy 3y ago
  Focusing on "fabricating observational data" is a cope for the fact that Boghossian et al made the targets of their papers look like absolute fools. The problem with the paper "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" wasn't that the data was wrong. Sokal and Boghossian's work intended (and succeeded?) to accomplish the same thing: they demonstrated the fact that these academic disciplines are full of bullshit producers and consumers.
  - bondarchuk 3y ago
    Quite like the poet Ern Malley, the authors would have inadvertently written a pretty nice (if a little over the top) paper on human behaviour around dogs' unwanted sexual and violent behaviour, if only they had used actual observational data. It seems quite common-sense to me that you can learn something about people's attitudes towards gay sex from how they react to their dogs having gay sex. I quote: "In particular, regarding the interaction of human beings and animals both inside of and apart from physical space, humans project their moral beliefs and assumptions onto animals and yet also consider animals ‘outside’ the moral sphere. [...] In animals, we see this inconsistency when applying human moral values to dogs by calling them ‘loyal’ or ‘disobedient’ or when referring to cats as ‘self-sufficient’ or ‘arrogant’ and yet accepting behaviors like fighting and torturing small animals as value-free and ‘natural.’" Yes! That's a good point and a good motivation for doing this research. The first research question: "(1) How do human discourses of rape culture get mapped onto dogs’ sexual encounters at dog parks; particularly, how do companions manage, contribute, and respond to ‘dog rape culture’?" If you are interested in human behaviour then I can see how this is an actually interesting RQ. I think rather too much of the gloating around this paper comes from people who simply don't think any (qualitative) science w.r.t. human behaviour is legitimate. Their using fake data preempts anyone from biting this bullet which is why it diminishes the force of the hoax a lot, imho.
    - asguy 3y ago
      "We published what we thought was a valid paper on a fat man in red that lives on the north pole and gives presents to children at the end of December. Unfortunately we didn't realize that the aeronautical data on his flying reindeer was falsified. This was clearly data fraud, and has no impact on us being a trustworthy peer-reviewed journal." lol
      - bondarchuk 3y ago
        Seems you simply don't think any qualitative research on human behaviour or culture is valuable.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    they demonstrated the fact that these academic disciplines are full of bullshit producers and consumers That seems like an unwarranted conclusion. They found a gullible journal -- one that nobody has ever heard of except in connection to this hoax. Extending that to "the entire discipline is faulty" sounds like exactly the sort of faulty logic that we scientists are supposed to avoid. If I wrote a journal article that consisted of one data point and drew a line from it I'd be blacklisted. Why on earth are we patting ourselves on the back for making precisely this mistake?
    - asguy 3y ago
      They found 7 gullible journals that accepted their papers. 4 of which got published before the project was discovered.
      - upupupandaway 3y ago
        and one of the papers got a special prize.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
Man there is some real hubris there for James A. Lindsay...
lproven 3y ago
Excellent -- this was news to me. Thanks. There is a demonstrable reluctance in these comments to confront what the Sokal hoax demonstrated. There are generally "common wisdom" conclusions from this, that again, does not materially affect how people live their lives. * If a country has "democratic" in its name, it's not a democracy. * If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yes there are of course exceptions... but they are literally small ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use... There are multiple areas of academia which role-play as rigorous scientific study, but in fact, are just people trading mumbo-jumbo which varies in how convincing it looks, and if you drill down, it's not just academia. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copeland-the-fund-book-excerpt.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copela... 100% of supplmentary, complementary, and alternative medicine is fake. Cf. https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ But that doesn't stop it being a multi-billion-$CURRENCY industry. It is entirely fake, but people will pay to think they feel better. That is why I used those names in that order. S. C. A. M. Gambling does not make you money. It makes gambling companies money. But it's vast. Stock markets are, largely, gambling, driven by vague feelings, instincts, and herd impulse. I have worked there. They don't really know. It's hunches and friendships and hysteria. But the world runs on it.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  > If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yeah, suck it materials scientists, your discipline ain't real.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Also turns out half of HN are not scientists either.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      That's certainly true though.
  - 3y ago

The more recent unofficial sequel to the Sokal Hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

bondarchuk 3y ago

That one is a bit different because they simply fabricated observational data (in the dog park paper at least).

asguy 3y ago
Focusing on "fabricating observational data" is a cope for the fact that Boghossian et al made the targets of their papers look like absolute fools. The problem with the paper "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" wasn't that the data was wrong. Sokal and Boghossian's work intended (and succeeded?) to accomplish the same thing: they demonstrated the fact that these academic disciplines are full of bullshit producers and consumers.
- bondarchuk 3y ago
  Quite like the poet Ern Malley, the authors would have inadvertently written a pretty nice (if a little over the top) paper on human behaviour around dogs' unwanted sexual and violent behaviour, if only they had used actual observational data. It seems quite common-sense to me that you can learn something about people's attitudes towards gay sex from how they react to their dogs having gay sex. I quote: "In particular, regarding the interaction of human beings and animals both inside of and apart from physical space, humans project their moral beliefs and assumptions onto animals and yet also consider animals ‘outside’ the moral sphere. [...] In animals, we see this inconsistency when applying human moral values to dogs by calling them ‘loyal’ or ‘disobedient’ or when referring to cats as ‘self-sufficient’ or ‘arrogant’ and yet accepting behaviors like fighting and torturing small animals as value-free and ‘natural.’" Yes! That's a good point and a good motivation for doing this research. The first research question: "(1) How do human discourses of rape culture get mapped onto dogs’ sexual encounters at dog parks; particularly, how do companions manage, contribute, and respond to ‘dog rape culture’?" If you are interested in human behaviour then I can see how this is an actually interesting RQ. I think rather too much of the gloating around this paper comes from people who simply don't think any (qualitative) science w.r.t. human behaviour is legitimate. Their using fake data preempts anyone from biting this bullet which is why it diminishes the force of the hoax a lot, imho.
  - asguy 3y ago
    "We published what we thought was a valid paper on a fat man in red that lives on the north pole and gives presents to children at the end of December. Unfortunately we didn't realize that the aeronautical data on his flying reindeer was falsified. This was clearly data fraud, and has no impact on us being a trustworthy peer-reviewed journal." lol
    - bondarchuk 3y ago
      Seems you simply don't think any qualitative research on human behaviour or culture is valuable.
- jfengel 3y ago
  they demonstrated the fact that these academic disciplines are full of bullshit producers and consumers That seems like an unwarranted conclusion. They found a gullible journal -- one that nobody has ever heard of except in connection to this hoax. Extending that to "the entire discipline is faulty" sounds like exactly the sort of faulty logic that we scientists are supposed to avoid. If I wrote a journal article that consisted of one data point and drew a line from it I'd be blacklisted. Why on earth are we patting ourselves on the back for making precisely this mistake?
  - asguy 3y ago
    They found 7 gullible journals that accepted their papers. 4 of which got published before the project was discovered.
    - upupupandaway 3y ago
      and one of the papers got a special prize.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

Man there is some real hubris there for James A. Lindsay...

lproven 3y ago

Excellent -- this was news to me. Thanks. There is a demonstrable reluctance in these comments to confront what the Sokal hoax demonstrated. There are generally "common wisdom" conclusions from this, that again, does not materially affect how people live their lives. * If a country has "democratic" in its name, it's not a democracy. * If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yes there are of course exceptions... but they are literally small ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic#Global_use... There are multiple areas of academia which role-play as rigorous scientific study, but in fact, are just people trading mumbo-jumbo which varies in how convincing it looks, and if you drill down, it's not just academia. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copeland-the-fund-book-excerpt.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ray-dalio-rob-copela... 100% of supplmentary, complementary, and alternative medicine is fake. Cf. https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ https://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ But that doesn't stop it being a multi-billion-$CURRENCY industry. It is entirely fake, but people will pay to think they feel better. That is why I used those names in that order. S. C. A. M. Gambling does not make you money. It makes gambling companies money. But it's vast. Stock markets are, largely, gambling, driven by vague feelings, instincts, and herd impulse. I have worked there. They don't really know. It's hunches and friendships and hysteria. But the world runs on it.

meepmorp 3y ago
> If an academic field has "science" in its name, it's not a science. Yeah, suck it materials scientists, your discipline ain't real.
- jowea 3y ago
  Also turns out half of HN are not scientists either.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    That's certainly true though.
- 3y ago