Academics succeed in publishing prank papers (in highly rated gender studies journals)

Feb 21, 2018
691
1,237
215
#52
For the record, I started a Phd in philosophy but dropped out. Turns out I didn't have much to add to what Wittgenstein had to say. But, also, I found the culture suffocating and I didn't want to spend another five years searching rabbit holes, or, more to the point, rabbit cul-de-sacs.

The extremely heavy left bias in academia is self-evident. But when it comes to humanities, there are other things at play. Humanities departments are desperate to be considerd the equal of the sciences. As a result, they go out of their way to couch papers in jargon and terminiology that lends their papers the air of empirical, objective truth. If you look at most of the stuff they're talking about, in the words of the dude 'that's just, like, your opinion man'. But because they have to maintain this science-ike credibility, papers are invariably incomprehensible gibberish. That way, they can pat laymen on the head and patronise all comers ' you wouldn't understand...it's complicated'.

I remain convinced that no one reads these papers, and that's why it's so easy to get published. It's not just that the ideas are batshit insane, you can't even work out what they're trying to say anyway.
 
May 4, 2005
12,779
1,454
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#53
This is the type of tripe that is common amongst leftist



https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/tvy6HwxEJWIaUMz8pyv3/full

This type of hooey passes as academic research. Intersectionality will be the death of soft sciences.
It is just a sign of a research field that lacks scientific criteria that attracts similar thinking people. On the right (i.e. neoliberal) side you will see such a bias (probably, I cannot prove it right now) in economic research. However, it certainly has assumed grotesque forms in gender studies. As a left-leaning person myself, I would be in favour of establishing a stricter scientific standard to the field.
 
Last edited:
Likes: hariseldon
Sep 17, 2012
8,873
653
520
#54
The irony is that the founder of American Sociology, Talcott Parsons, was a conservative and is criticised by modern sociologists, yet in the McCarthy era he was charged for being a Communist
 

Zaru

Member
Oct 2, 2012
3,229
146
410
#55
It is just a sign of a research field that lacks scientific criteria that attracts similar thinking people. On the right (i.e. neoliberal) side you will see such a bias (probably, I cannot prove it right now) in economic research. However, it certainly has assumed grotesque forms in gender studies. As a left-leaning person myself, I would be in favour of establishing a stricter scientific standard to the field.
For the record, I started a Phd in philosophy but dropped out. Turns out I didn't have much to add to what Wittgenstein had to say. But, also, I found the culture suffocating and I didn't want to spend another five years searching rabbit holes, or, more to the point, rabbit cul-de-sacs.

The extremely heavy left bias in academia is self-evident. But when it comes to humanities, there are other things at play. Humanities departments are desperate to be considerd the equal of the sciences. As a result, they go out of their way to couch papers in jargon and terminiology that lends their papers the air of empirical, objective truth. If you look at most of the stuff they're talking about, in the words of the dude 'that's just, like, your opinion man'. But because they have to maintain this science-ike credibility, papers are invariably incomprehensible gibberish. That way, they can pat laymen on the head and patronise all comers ' you wouldn't understand...it's complicated'.

I remain convinced that no one reads these papers, and that's why it's so easy to get published. It's not just that the ideas are batshit insane, you can't even work out what they're trying to say anyway.
Gender studies (probably to a larger extent than psychology and sociology) will always have a hard time with the scientific method because observational studies on humans are influenced by too many factors that span years and rely on subjective interpretation. Hard to do anything "in a vacuum" and thus replicate. Heck, without doing inhumane long-term experiments that deprive children of their real parents and lock them in a test facility, the whole nature vs. nurture debate which lies at the core of it will never be solved. Basically, it CANNOT be solved academically.
So what's left is a field full of non-falsifiable ideas and thought experiments. (Kinda like theology and... economics?)
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#56
Gender studies (probably to a larger extent than psychology and sociology) will always have a hard time with the scientific method because observational studies on humans are influenced by too many factors that span years and rely on subjective interpretation. Hard to do anything "in a vacuum" and thus replicate. Heck, without doing inhumane long-term experiments that deprive children of their real parents and lock them in a test facility, the whole nature vs. nurture debate which lies at the core of it will never be solved. Basically, it CANNOT be solved academically.
So what's left is a field full of non-falsifiable ideas and thought experiments. (Kinda like theology and... economics?)
My degree is in psychology (masters in computing - long story) and I can confirm that psychology is just as bad tbh, especially the field of employment psychology. I even did a thorough take-down of the whole concept (including those wonderful fucking psychometric tests that any idiot can fake based on some outdated and widely debunked 'science') as one of my pieces of work for my degree, such was my hatred of it. I spent 3 years doing 50/50 psychology with globalisation (think religion, politics and economics) to conclude that psychology wasn't worth a damn. I did get a 2:1 though, just short of a 1st.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,924
3,210
410
#57
For the record, I started a Phd in philosophy but dropped out. Turns out I didn't have much to add to what Wittgenstein had to say. But, also, I found the culture suffocating and I didn't want to spend another five years searching rabbit holes, or, more to the point, rabbit cul-de-sacs.

The extremely heavy left bias in academia is self-evident. But when it comes to humanities, there are other things at play. Humanities departments are desperate to be considerd the equal of the sciences. As a result, they go out of their way to couch papers in jargon and terminiology that lends their papers the air of empirical, objective truth. If you look at most of the stuff they're talking about, in the words of the dude 'that's just, like, your opinion man'. But because they have to maintain this science-ike credibility, papers are invariably incomprehensible gibberish. That way, they can pat laymen on the head and patronise all comers ' you wouldn't understand...it's complicated'.

I remain convinced that no one reads these papers, and that's why it's so easy to get published. It's not just that the ideas are batshit insane, you can't even work out what they're trying to say anyway.
and then you have them quoting and sourcing each other so its a giant circle. The "proof" or "evidence" is just someone else gooby gook couched in big/academic sounding words to give it an air of legitimacy.
 
Likes: danielberg
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#59
Glad you liked it. I should probably credit it to its original source, RPS used to refer to the creature wearing Atari's skin - it felt appropriate to re-use it in this case.
 
Likes: matt404au
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#60
and then you have them quoting and sourcing each other so its a giant circle. The "proof" or "evidence" is just someone else gooby gook couched in big/academic sounding words to give it an air of legitimacy.
Tbh I referenced a whole bunch of shit I never even read for my dissertation and still got good marks for it, and my masters was the same (top marks despite that) - I wanted the bit of paper and didn't have time so I skimmed the abstract, having looked for things that matched what I was looking for. Tbh I'd say a large chunk of academia is doing exactly the same. And yes I know, I did a shitty thing, my degree was for a specific purpose, as was my MSc, I was just after the paper after concluding the educational aspect of both (seriously the MSc was so easy as to be a joke) was unworthy of my time.
 
Aug 22, 2018
184
188
170
#61
But because they have to maintain this science-ike credibility, papers are invariably incomprehensible gibberish. That way, they can pat laymen on the head and patronise all comers ' you wouldn't understand...it's complicated'.
Exhibit A:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23793406.2016.1167111
"The Tropics of Whiteness"

Exhibit B-? can be found by looking at the articles suggested below on the page.

What's always striking to me is how old some of these articles are, many from th 90's, 00's etc. I had never heard this kind of rhetoric before in the open until 2015.
 
Sep 4, 2018
2,523
2,828
265
#63
WHATEVER the modern satyrs o' th' stage,
To jerk the failures of a sliding age,
Have lavishly expos'd to public view,
For a discharge to all from envy due,
Here in as lively colours naked lie,
With equal wit, and more of modesty,
Those poets, with their free disclosing arts,
Strip vice so near to its uncomely parts,
Their libels prove but lessons, and they teach
Those very crimes which they intend t' impeach:
While here so wholesome all, tho' sharp t' th' taste,
So briskly free, yet so resolv'dly chaste;
The virgin naked as her god of bows,
May read or hear when blood at highest flows;
Nor more expense of blushes thence arise,
Than while the lect'ring matron does advise
To guard her virtue, and her honour prize.

Satire and panegyric, distant be,
Yet jointly here they both in one agree.
The whole's a sacrifice of salt and fire;
So does the humour of the age require,
To chafe the touch, and so foment desire.
As doctrine-dangling preachers lull asleep
Their unattentive pent-up fold of sheep;
The opiated milk glues up the brain,
Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, 1509
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Praise_of_Folly

a lot of humanism and the academic tradition is rooted in flowery self-serving in-fighting & commentary. there are a lot of satirical works, the whole practice was very popular, criticizing other people for having a bad grasp on culture. much of humanisim was based around around fetishizing Latin culture, at the time the nostalgic longing & snobbery for the Roman Empire. note the interest in high classical sculpture. Latin was and still is the center of that ivory tower. if you were good with grammar you could live by criticizing your peers and mindless un cultured basics, escaping at the time a pretty brutal life of hard labor through proper consumption. hey, that's still sort of true.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,961
2,057
240
#65
So.. the bastards are trying to fire him, on technicalities. Absolutely shameless. Expose corruption, get fired and silenced. You really couldn't make it up.

Typical... they wont clean up their wrong data, idiotic concepts or fire the sjw charlatans that poison education with blatant racism so all they have left is going after people that expose them, the only thing surprising is how long it took.
 
Feb 25, 2017
316
336
230
#66
I've said it before and I'll say it again, social science such as ethnic/gender studies are pseudo sciences that shouldn't be given scientific legitimacy or association. They are at best an area of study that should be classified with the art/music/history disciplines and should not be treated as a science.

There are simply too many questionable and suspicious studies coming from this field, that if left unchecked, will corrupt and harm real scientific fields that require legitimacy to operate. Not to mention they are being increasingly used by one political party to justify the push for policies that may very well harm certain populations of society.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,779
1,454
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#67
So.. the bastards are trying to fire him, on technicalities. Absolutely shameless. Expose corruption, get fired and silenced. You really couldn't make it up.

I can understand one point, the one of fabrication of data. I know that in my job at the university, I would be in breach of contract if I did something like they did here, because I cannot publish fabricated data in any scientific venue whatsoever. It would be a clear cut case. The point of an experiment on humans is absolutely ridiculous though and I also think it is false, because even though humans are involved, they are not the object of study, the object of study is the system. They did not involve the humans directly, they were involved as part of the system under review. Consent of the humans involved cannot be gotten in advance.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#68
I can understand one point, the one of fabrication of data. I know that in my job at the university, I would be in breach of contract if I did something like they did here, because I cannot publish fabricated data in any scientific venue whatsoever. It would be a clear cut case. The point of an experiment on humans is absolutely ridiculous though and I also think it is false, because even though humans are involved, they are not the object of study, the object of study is the system. They did not involve the humans directly, they were involved as part of the system under review. Consent of the humans involved cannot be gotten in advance.
Re fabrication of data, I would say that in this case, in the task of investigating responses to clearly-false theories, I'm not sure what other approach was available, just as there was no approach to be had other than submitting to the journals without saying "oh yeah by the way we're testing this thesis on your uselessness". It's one of those cases where a bit of common sense ought to apply. Persecution of whistle-blowers isn't a good look.
 
May 4, 2005
12,779
1,454
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#69
Re fabrication of data, I would say that in this case, in the task of investigating responses to clearly-false theories, I'm not sure what other approach was available, just as there was no approach to be had other than submitting to the journals without saying "oh yeah by the way we're testing this thesis on your uselessness". It's one of those cases where a bit of common sense ought to apply. Persecution of whistle-blowers isn't a good look.
It would be possible to write papers without false statistics. It would be much more difficult to get a paper published that does not use false statistics though.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#70
It would be possible to write papers without false statistics. It would be much more difficult to get a paper published that does not use false statistics though.
How exactly would one go about getting a paper that is obviously bunk published without making up the statistics? I mean that's literally half the damn point, that nobody is checking the quality of the results or statistical work.
 
May 4, 2005
12,779
1,454
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#71
How exactly would one go about getting a paper that is obviously bunk published without making up the statistics? I mean that's literally half the damn point, that nobody is checking the quality of the results or statistical work.
In most fields this would pose a problem, but gender sciences have papers that are merely conceptual discussions and are not supported by statistical evidence. Statistics are hard to verify from a reviewer's perspective, if the main point was to show that arguing by statistics requires a certain level of confidence in the author, then they could have just as easily attacked other empirical sciences. I do not think this was the major issue here though.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#72
In most fields this would pose a problem, but gender sciences have papers that are merely conceptual discussions and are not supported by statistical evidence. Statistics are hard to verify from a reviewer's perspective, if the main point was to show that arguing by statistics requires a certain level of confidence in the author, then they could have just as easily attacked other empirical sciences. I do not think this was the major issue here though.
I suspect we're just not going to agree on this one, because I just don't see where you're coming from and you don't see where I'm coming from - end result is us talking past each other somewhat. At the end of the day, whistle-blowing does sometimes require breaking a few rules. Punishing whistle-blowers for breaking those rules when they uncover huge systemic issues is a bad idea and makes academia look corrupt, purging dissidents, and creates an unhealthy chilling effect.
 
May 4, 2005
12,779
1,454
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#74
This is peer review. This is not conceptual discussion but to validate the argument and set it as an approved, established standard in academia.
The entire point of the exercise was to demonstrate how false standards are being set due to ideological dogma.
I see you are very interested in the topic of being unable to read. However, I was clearly not talking about what Boghossian et al. did here, but about existing work in the gender studies field. I understand and appreciate the intention of the authors, I merely deem the use of fake statistics as a problematic aspect of the work - in contrast to interacting with reviewers in the process, which I think is no issue. By conceptual discussion, which they could have submitted without fabricating data, I mean papers like this one, introducing white privilege: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/jsibbett/readings/White_Privilege.pdf
 
May 4, 2005
12,779
1,454
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#76
Ah, my bad. How silly of me to assume you were being on-topic.

My point, in the context of this thread, stands.
Being on topic does not mean that every sentence one uses solely addresses specifically the action described in the original posting. I was on topic, yet was not describing the work of Boghossian et al. Since your point was a refutation of something that no one claimed outside of your head, your point is void.
 
Jun 18, 2018
161
56
195
#77
This is peer review. This is not conceptual discussion but to validate the argument and set it as an approved, established standard in academia.
The entire point of the exercise was to demonstrate how false standards are being set due to ideological dogma.
Peer review is little more than: “could this be credible or do the authors offer an original view?” And being published in journals is often just “ will this create a debate in the field of study?”
 
Feb 21, 2018
691
1,237
215
#81
I can understand one point, the one of fabrication of data. I know that in my job at the university, I would be in breach of contract if I did something like they did here, because I cannot publish fabricated data in any scientific venue whatsoever. It would be a clear cut case. The point of an experiment on humans is absolutely ridiculous though and I also think it is false, because even though humans are involved, they are not the object of study, the object of study is the system. They did not involve the humans directly, they were involved as part of the system under review. Consent of the humans involved cannot be gotten in advance.
The *whole point* of the exercise is that they want to show how easy it is for utter nonsense to get published.

False data would be questionable when it is knowingly passed off as true, and the writer has no intention of disclosing the fact. These chaps let the whole world know.

The one thing authority despises is to be laughed at. And like all nasty little despots, the only way these arseholes know how to treat dissent is by silencing the voice.

Says a *great* deal about the state of higher education that the pranksters could lose their jobs, rather than the FUCKING IMBECILES that are accepting these absurd articles.
 
Feb 21, 2018
691
1,237
215
#82
In most fields this would pose a problem, but gender sciences have papers that are merely conceptual discussions and are not supported by statistical evidence. Statistics are hard to verify from a reviewer's perspective, if the main point was to show that arguing by statistics requires a certain level of confidence in the author, then they could have just as easily attacked other empirical sciences. I do not think this was the major issue here though.
Gender science?

Jesus Christ. Someone pass me the smelling salts.
 
Mar 10, 2015
1,308
1,365
340
Austin, TX
#84
In most fields this would pose a problem, but gender sciences have papers that are merely conceptual discussions and are not supported by statistical evidence. Statistics are hard to verify from a reviewer's perspective, if the main point was to show that arguing by statistics requires a certain level of confidence in the author, then they could have just as easily attacked other empirical sciences. I do not think this was the major issue here though.
Hi, it's not a fucking science if it's not a discussion of data with statistical evidence. It's just someone's opinion.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,298
3,172
275
#85
Hi, it's not a fucking science if it's not a discussion of data with statistical evidence. It's just someone's opinion.
I'd categorise it as a blog post! The fun bit is that people get to reference it and people tend not to check it, so some random's opinion gains the same weight in most public discourse as a proper scientific paper (which is why I tend to get a bit arsey with people who spam links to academic articles to justify their opinions).