4 ms·
The charitable interpretation is that this isn't real science. If you have gender studies papers like the fake "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Perfor
by bko 2y ago
The charitable interpretation is that this isn't real science. If you have gender studies papers like the fake "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" that showed dog parks were "rape-condoning spaces" where canine interactions reflected human rape culture and systemic oppression. They get through the system even though they are obviously satire. And yes, it was peer reviewed and even recognized as a significant contribution to feminist geography during the journal's anniversary celebration before the hoax was revealed
There were always things we considered science that are no longer considered science or harmful (blood letting, lobotomy, race science, etc)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
- tgv 2y agoWhile I also consider most of sociology and its ilk to be unscientific, and the rest to be only tenuously scientific, we all know that the real reason behind this order is not so charitable. Those in power don't care about science, they simply dislike what's written in those papers.
- bko 2y agoIt can be both. If they believe there is some harmful effect on this particular pseudo science about grievance politics that's driving social contagion and self harm, then they believe it should be removed, at least from places like libraries. You'll see the same thing with race science. I reject it not because I'm well versed on how it's not rigorous enough, although it may be, but I think it's on its face because incredibly harmful.
- watwut 2y agoI would add that when you actually started to read and listen to what actual sociologists say and do ... it was nothing like what random math graduate mussing on HN thinks it is. The popular approach here of cherry picking two small studies and running wild with them was not all that much a thing. Instead there was way more care about making conclusions, a lot of nuance and conditional statements (this study says so under those conditions and another one opposes sort of thing). But, what certain people here actually hate the most are results that are fairly consistent and were reproduced to death.
- JCattheATM 2y ago> While I also consider most of sociology and its ilk to be unscientific, and the rest to be only tenuously scientific, They are not any less scientific than, say, physics just because they have a harder time observing and modeling things.
- dogleash 2y ago> not any less scientific In theory, no. In practice, yes. One doesn't even need to make a subtle case about all the ways it's gone wrong. Just say "Reproducibility Crisis".
- dekhn 2y agoYes, as practiced, as well as in principle, sociology is less scientific than physics. Some systems- human social behavior being one of them- are simply not amenable to modern science because the systems have far too many uncontrolled variables, and the ability to create hypotheses which can't be falsified (because running the experiments would be impossible, unethical, or ambiguous) is far larger.
- JCattheATM 2y agoScience is a methodology. Science is applied equally in both disciplines. That one field has more uncontrolled variables does not make it less scientific.
- dekhn 2y agoI have not seen evidence that the methodology of science is applied routinely in sociological research.
- JCattheATM 2y agoAnd you have, first hand, in every other field?
- tgv 2y agoYes, they are. A lot of sociology and its surrounding fields is just talk. Idle speculation. The rather small empirical part is riddled with methodological errors. There are now people trying to build more detailed, computational models, but that is a slow process, and the more realistic the model, the more often it will be wrong.
- mcphage 2y ago> The charitable interpretation is that this isn't real science. That doesn’t sound charitable at all.
- nandomrumber 2y agoThe uncharitable interpretation is that these theories are intentionally harmful and trying to push a particularly nefarious ideology for political gain. The charitable interpretation is that this isn't real science.
- mcphage 2y agoThat's still not charitable.
- watwut 2y agoYour example is a hoax article. It was not written by people you criticize. They never used it as an argument by them either. Also, given development last few years, it turned out grievance studies were pretty correct about misogyny in society and about where rather large part of conservative population wants to go. Overall, they actually diagnosed things pretty accurately.