3 ms·

I feel like this article almost makes some good points, but instead of completing any good points, it just keeps jumping to other unrelated points. This gives

I feel like this article almost makes some good points, but instead of completing any good points, it just keeps jumping to other unrelated points. This gives the distinct impression that it's not trying to identify any single problem, but to stoke a vague sense of bitterness at academia. Like there is a replication crisis in academia. That's a scientific problem that requires a scientific or engineering solution (perhaps requiring independent labs with 0 affiliation to execute experiments on your behalf and interpret data on your behalf). There was also some college president who lacked integrity and was fired, yay. The article fails to show what the common thread is in cause and solution between these two issues (and if there's no connection, then it shouldn't bring them up one after the other). If I go a step further, this might even be interpreted as a bad-faith attempt to comingle completely non-political problems with academia (replication crisis, cost increases, a dishonest college president) with politics.

gnicholas 3y ago
IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies. This is why the cries of academic freedom and freedom of speech (made by the presidents in front of congress) rang hollow — it was obvious that if the free speech was made by other people, and targeted different groups, it would not have been countenanced.
- hexane360 3y ago
  Except that's transparently not true outside of the imagination of culture warriors.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Nice assertion — is there any evidence behind it?
    - hexane360 3y ago
      For instance, MIT recently had a bunch of hate speech (against LGBTQ people) posted around campus. In response, MIT... defended the actions and encouraged students to post their own countermessages rather than take down the hateful posters: https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/recent-postering https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/recent-postering If anything, MIT has been more forceful in setting limits on pro-Palestinian demonstrations than on anti-LGBTQ speech.
      - gotoeleven 3y ago
        Haha what? this is the best example you can find? Those "anti LGBTQ" flyers were satirical attacks _from the left_ on the recently adopted MIT free speech policy. You are arguing dishonestly.
        hexane360 3y ago
        First of all, the posters were not obviously satirical (as evidenced by the letter I linked). The intent of the posters only matters if you think MIT left the posters up because they had a leftward intent but a rightward message. But MIT made their decision before knowing the identity or politics behind the posters. This isn't the only example, but it is one that straightforwardly shows that MIT is consistent with regards to its free speech policies. You accuse me of arguing dishonestly. Instead, why don't you present your evidence that MIT has acted against its policy in an official capacity?
- zug_zug 3y ago
  > IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies. But if it wants to make that point it should start by stating the point outright and then follow-on with some sort of supporting arguments. The post brings up Dan Ariely's work that doesn't replicate. So far as I know there's no allegation that this was political -- just plain old self-interest. The only thing it presents is an allegation about some history paper around metallurgy. Which just seems like a bitter association rather than an attempt at evidencing the claim that the majority of academic replication failure is political. The more I reread this the more half-baked and rambly it seems.

gnicholas 3y ago

IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies. This is why the cries of academic freedom and freedom of speech (made by the presidents in front of congress) rang hollow — it was obvious that if the free speech was made by other people, and targeted different groups, it would not have been countenanced.

hexane360 3y ago
Except that's transparently not true outside of the imagination of culture warriors.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Nice assertion — is there any evidence behind it?
  - hexane360 3y ago
    For instance, MIT recently had a bunch of hate speech (against LGBTQ people) posted around campus. In response, MIT... defended the actions and encouraged students to post their own countermessages rather than take down the hateful posters: https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/recent-postering https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/recent-postering If anything, MIT has been more forceful in setting limits on pro-Palestinian demonstrations than on anti-LGBTQ speech.
    - gotoeleven 3y ago
      Haha what? this is the best example you can find? Those "anti LGBTQ" flyers were satirical attacks _from the left_ on the recently adopted MIT free speech policy. You are arguing dishonestly.
      - hexane360 3y ago
        First of all, the posters were not obviously satirical (as evidenced by the letter I linked). The intent of the posters only matters if you think MIT left the posters up because they had a leftward intent but a rightward message. But MIT made their decision before knowing the identity or politics behind the posters. This isn't the only example, but it is one that straightforwardly shows that MIT is consistent with regards to its free speech policies. You accuse me of arguing dishonestly. Instead, why don't you present your evidence that MIT has acted against its policy in an official capacity?
zug_zug 3y ago
> IMO the connection was that universities are hesitant to pursue claims of replication problems, plagiarism, etc. when the accused academic is from a preferred groups, or has preferred ideologies. But if it wants to make that point it should start by stating the point outright and then follow-on with some sort of supporting arguments. The post brings up Dan Ariely's work that doesn't replicate. So far as I know there's no allegation that this was political -- just plain old self-interest. The only thing it presents is an allegation about some history paper around metallurgy. Which just seems like a bitter association rather than an attempt at evidencing the claim that the majority of academic replication failure is political. The more I reread this the more half-baked and rambly it seems.