md0 wrote:Crucially, the hoaxers provided the extraordinary evidence in the form of made-up datasets in most of their papers. The peer-review model is vulnerable to this exploit, and not just in social sciences. Non-reproducible papers are published in medicine and in psychology all the time. To make it look like this fundamental problem of science publishing is entirely the fault of leftists (I guess this is what you are getting at), is the ideological spin.
Did you read how the hoax was uncovered? By journalists who simply tried to confirm the author identity and soon discovered that the author didn't even exist. That's how easy it was to deconstruct this "extraordinary evidence".
Jonathan Haidt summed up the incident well:
"The project was undertaken because there is a long running and colossal violation of academic integrity in a few departments in the academy. There is a disciplinary norm in some fields and journals of publishing papers that take a particular moral/political position, whether or not they have scholarly merit. That was Alan Sokal's point in his hoax paper: as long as he seemed to be taking a social constructionist point of view, it didn't matter that the editors could not understand what he had written. The grievance studies hoax shows that this problem persists, across multiple journals in several fields. Boghassian and his colleagues undertook a long, time consuming, and career-risking project to stand up for academic integrity by exposing what is, arguably, an academic subculture that tolerates intellectual fraud."
linguoboy wrote:I'm finding conservatives' obsession with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly-elected representative to Congress from New York City, kind of fascinating. She seems to have replaced even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as their biggest bugaboo. I know she's quite popular among liberals and progressives as well, but honestly no one I know on the left posts about her half as often as the right-wing populists I know.
They seem particularly interested in portraying her as dumb but can't even be bothered to pay enough attention to what she says to do this effectively. I expected to see quotes from her taken out of context and ridiculed but instead mostly what I see are quotes that are completely invented. Maybe because 90% of the things she says about wealth inequality and the flaws of capitalism are things they'd actually agree with?
I was cautiously optimistic about AOC, but the Amazon debacle taught me better.
“If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money, if we wanted to” - AOC
There is no 3 billion lying around to invest elsewhere, and it speaks volumes that the most vocal critic of the deal apparently didn't have a clue about the economics of it.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka