EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: bson on October 03, 2018, 03:27:16 am
-
The Wall Street Journal reveals a slew of published hoax papers, written to protest the encroachment of grievance politics on sciences.
Affilia, a peer-reviewed journal of women and social work, formally accepted the trio’s hoax paper, “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism.” The second portion of the paper is a rewrite of a chapter from “Mein Kampf.” Affilia’s editors declined to comment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950?mod=hp_opin_pos2 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950?mod=hp_opin_pos2)
-
This is a well-trod territory, famous since the "Sokal hoax" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).
For further information, see the books Sokal published, including "Fashionable Nonsense", as well as Gross & Levitt's "Higher Superstition".
-
I must be old school, I had to look up grievance politics to see what it meant.
-
Accidentally, I just linked that article on my fb timeline.
Well, I bet you all think of those great merits we have from gender studies.
Just like the discovery of penicillin, quinine, and the development of the lightbulb and steam engine at once.
-
Just to be clear, these papers were published in peer reviewed journals, unlike Sokal's. This is what makes it such a big deal; you can always find some magazine to publish anything, and the purpose of peer review is to catch inconsistencies - never mind wholesale fraud and fiction. A peer reviewer who can't tell there no meaningful research and the data doesn't add up (it was faked not only to not add up, but also used to draw totally contradictory conclusions in different portions of the same paper) is useless, and the journal they review for worthless for using them for that purpose. Yet one editor even suggested that somehow this was a waste of the peer reviewer's time!!! I mean, the peer reviewer should be dropped on the spot, not defended. Either such a reviewer is totally incompetent in their field of expertise, or they didn't do their job at all. It reflects on the journal itself for relying on such a reviewer, in particular raising questions whether it's even interested in scientific inquiry, or is political entertainment disguised as science (what is often called scientism, which is the peddling of science as a belief system, either across the board or when it suits).
-
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/humanities-research-politicized-too-fake-papers-feminist-mein-kampf-get-through-peer-review/ (http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/humanities-research-politicized-too-fake-papers-feminist-mein-kampf-get-through-peer-review/)
More commentary on that, plus further links.
-
A bit of a follow up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWhuQOVTFGw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWhuQOVTFGw)
-
The predictable backlash:
https://spectator.us/trial-peter-boghossian/