Red Mosquito

The Sokal Affair 2.0

run2death wrote:I'm gonna state the obvious here, but...

Sociology is also a really easy target. I would almost argue that there's really no such thing as "peer-reviewed" sociology works in the typical "scientific" sense.

But I think that's it's kind of their point: That sociology and critical theory are not the same as the hard sciences (James Lindsay's background is in mathematics and physics). I think they worry that postmodernism is creeping into the hard sciences with claims that there is a bias since not enough women and POCs are involved so it's just another tool of white supremacy/patriarchy. I think the goal of the three academics is to say "Stay in your lane, postmoderism."

Hmm I wonder if Peter Boghossian is related to Paul Boghossian, who wrote a great book on the nature of knowledge and relativism I once recommended to Burt.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news- ... 1538520950

Mr Boghossian doesn't have tenure and expects the university will fire or otherwise punish him. Ms Pluckrose predicts she'll have a hard time getting accepted to a doctoral program. Mr Lindsay said he expects to become "an academic pariah," barred from professorships or publications.

Always worth pointing out that the pursuit of truth is no higher on the priority list in academia than it is anywhere else.

.

.

.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Dscans wrote:

run2death wrote:I'm gonna state the obvious here, but...

Sociology is also a really easy target. I would almost argue that there's really no such thing as "peer-reviewed" sociology works in the typical "scientific" sense.

But I think that's it's kind of their point: That sociology and critical theory are not the same as the hard sciences (James Lindsay's background is in mathematics and physics). I think they worry that postmodernism is creeping into the hard sciences with claims that there is a bias since not enough women and POCs are involved so it's just another tool of white supremacy/patriarchy. I think the goal of the three academics is to say "Stay in your lane, postmoderism."

If nothing else, when someone starts a sentence with "a study showed that...", especially when it comes to humanities, one shouldn't simply turn off there brains and accept it as real science. Often when I look up the people doing the studies and the studies themselves, they are a mess.

I don't know, it's just strikes me as a weird thing to go after.

I think most people filter sociology through a different lens than science. It's always gonna be susceptible to trends and politics because it's about society and cultures.

"We rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism and...this journal has accepted it."

.

.

BurtReynolds wrote:

run2death wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Dscans wrote:

run2death wrote:I'm gonna state the obvious here, but...

Sociology is also a really easy target. I would almost argue that there's really no such thing as "peer-reviewed" sociology works in the typical "scientific" sense.

But I think that's it's kind of their point: That sociology and critical theory are not the same as the hard sciences (James Lindsay's background is in mathematics and physics). I think they worry that postmodernism is creeping into the hard sciences with claims that there is a bias since not enough women and POCs are involved so it's just another tool of white supremacy/patriarchy. I think the goal of the three academics is to say "Stay in your lane, postmoderism."

If nothing else, when someone starts a sentence with "a study showed that...", especially when it comes to humanities, one shouldn't simply turn off there brains and accept it as real science. Often when I look up the people doing the studies and the studies themselves, they are a mess.

I don't know, it's just strikes me as a weird thing to go after.

I think most people filter sociology through a different lens than science. It's always gonna be susceptible to trends and politics because it's about society and cultures.

It's no surprise to anyone that I don't think this is the case. I'd like to believe that people (rightfully) filter it through a different lens, but it seems that too often the press and academics accept this pseudoscience as fact, and criticize anyone who disagrees with it as "anti-science". This is not a fringe problem, and it's becoming more pervasive.

Lots of people (particularity on the left) seem to let socioeconomics dominate their entire belief system and pollute their logic.

"Not all Muslims..."

run2death wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Dscans wrote:

run2death wrote:I'm gonna state the obvious here, but...

Sociology is also a really easy target. I would almost argue that there's really no such thing as "peer-reviewed" sociology works in the typical "scientific" sense.

But I think that's it's kind of their point: That sociology and critical theory are not the same as the hard sciences (James Lindsay's background is in mathematics and physics). I think they worry that postmodernism is creeping into the hard sciences with claims that there is a bias since not enough women and POCs are involved so it's just another tool of white supremacy/patriarchy. I think the goal of the three academics is to say "Stay in your lane, postmoderism."

If nothing else, when someone starts a sentence with "a study showed that...", especially when it comes to humanities, one shouldn't simply turn off there brains and accept it as real science. Often when I look up the people doing the studies and the studies themselves, they are a mess.

I don't know, it's just strikes me as a weird thing to go after.

I think most people filter sociology through a different lens than science. It's always gonna be susceptible to trends and politics because it's about society and cultures.

This is a remarkably benign way of assessing the impact of a political and ideological monoculture that is so pervasive - within an institution whose ostensible aim is the pursuit of truth, no less - that literal rewrites of Mein Kampf can be published under the auspices of feminism.

Ideas matter. Exposing bad ones, embracing good ones, exploring new ones, and debating contentious ones are all but impossible in ___ studies, sociology, anthropology, education (!), and, increasingly, the broader culture...unless they find themselves within the very small space occupied by what is considered politically, socially, and culturally acceptable. Anyone who values a free and good-faith exchange of ideas should commend this project.

Lots of assuming in that post.

run2death wrote:Lots of assuming in that post.

What about?

I don't find it weird that publications for a "pseudoscience" would publish those and therefore don't think they present a great/compelling argument.

You're making some grand extrapolations about my feelings on our current climate of discourse.

run2death wrote:I don't find it weird that publications for a "pseudoscience" would publish those and therefore don't think they present a great/compelling argument.

Should the standards for discipline-specific peer review - and hence, the ideas that become consensus - be high enough to preclude literal Mein Kampf rewrites from being published? How do such low standards work in favor of the ideas and academic credibility of the authors that manage to clear such low bars?

run2death wrote:You're making some grand extrapolations about my feelings on our current climate of discourse.

Not entirely. I am extrapolating about the current climate of discourse at large, and similarly extrapolating that anyone who finds it dismaying would similarly object to the dynamics I mentioned. Maybe this isn't you, which is fine.

What do you think about the current climate of discourse?

run2death wrote:I don't find it weird that publications for a "pseudoscience" would publish those and therefore don't think they present a great/compelling argument.

You're making some grand extrapolations about my feelings on our current climate of discourse.

Do you think PhD sociologists would agree that theirs is a pseudoscience? It's not a hard science, but surely there are methodological standards and norms regarding objectivity, rigor, theory, evidence, etc. that good sociology conforms to. I have no knowledge about that particular journal, but I don't think an academic journal should be viewed as if its a popular press magazine without content standards.

you know what's a great degree to have? being a plumber

they make great money and are a lot less annoying to talk to