Slashdot Mirror
Proceedings Start Against Portland State University Professor Whose Carefully Crafted Fiction Helped Expose the Rot Within Some Sectors of Modern Academia
Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University in Oregon, led a trio of scholars last year who submitted to leading publications what they called "intentionally broken" papers on gender, race and sexuality. Several of those absurd pieces were published. Portland State University has now started disciplinary proceedings against Boghossian. From a report: The Oregon university's institutional review board concluded that Boghossian's participation in the elaborate hoax had violated Portland State's ethical guidelines, according to documents Boghossian posted online. The university is considering a further charge that he had falsified data, the documents indicate. Last month Portland State's vice president for research and graduate studies, Mark R. McLellan, ordered Boghossian to undergo training on human-subjects research as a condition for getting further studies approved. In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian's behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."
Alas, these days every insane story has a link and is true....
...The absurdities of Academia.
Clearly proof that our Universities are broken.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Ah, of course; shoot the messenger. Time honored "head in sand" technique.
That'll solve the credibility problem!
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The idiots were the publications that published the fake, absurd papers on fake, absurd "disciplines" of study.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
... not a good idea to point out that the Emperor wears no clothes after all. The Emperor's minions will come after you with sharpened knives... and actions to revoke your tenure.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
-- "In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian's behavior "raises ethical issues of concern.""
The ethical concern being that Boghossian displayed some ethics?
I meant academia generally, now circling the wagons.
Roger...go it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
For this really to be carefully crafted, they'd have to have a control group, where they craft equally (im)plausible scientific papers to a large variety of fields and show that particular fields are especially prone to publishing shoddy papers.
As it is, we all know shoddy papers can slip through to publication, publishing a few more proves nothing. Intentionally trying to slip shoddy papers through does seem like something a scholar should not be doing, and disciplinary action is appropriate.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
why do these even exist? Are there deep mysteries about gender and race that we struggle to understand? Or are we just trying to justify the need for useless paycheck collecting parasites at "academic institutions"?
So he and his cohorts exposed major ethical problems with research publications and now the university is punishing him for ethics violations because of it?
Dat Ain't Right. Killing the messenger, etc etc
Ohmygersh!!! We'ze a got caught!
Punish those who exposed us!
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
AmiMojo should read this quote: "These fields of study do not continue the important and noble liberal work of the civil rights movements,” they write. “They corrupt it while trading upon their good names to keep pushing a kind of social snake oil onto a public that keeps getting sicker.”
That applies to ANY SJW. You are a disgrace to those who actually fight for equality and social justice and things that matter.
They should be applauded for uncovering the corruption.
Fraud in academia is rampant. China raised the bar on phony academic papers and now the west feels the need to keep up with the Joneses.
For years the left accused Corporations and Law Enforcement as being unable to police themselves.
It also appears that the darling institutions of the left (media and academia) are also wholly incapable of policing themselves as well.
theres a time and place for everything, and thats college. then the real world hits. its just skewl, get over it.
He made us look bad because we published nonsense.
Time for a refresher:
https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html
and they got caught by peer review. They're currently being punished because they faked studies. Do all the dumb gender studies you want, but you have to do them. Otherwise your wasting everyone's time with what amounts to a troll post.
If you want to make a case that SJWs have gone too far (which is what the Vox article says they were doing) that's fine, but do real research on the topic in a controlled setting and then, based on that research present solutions to improve the situation. That would add usefully to the discussion.
As a lefty I welcome that. Nut job blue haired college girls are giving actual, effective left wing policies like medicare for all a bad name and radicalizing a host of angry men who feel threatened by out of control feminists (never mind the fact that these guys are part of the atheist-skeptic community who's been getting buddy/buddy with the Evangelicals lately out of fear of SJWs, see the Creationist Cat and Cult of Dusty Youtube channels for more on this ).
Bottom line, these guys should take their lumps for trolling us. I'm fed up with these anti-SJW types trolling us for cheap publicity, usually in the hopes of getting some Youtube views & Patreon donations out of angry men. They're as bad as the SJWs they attack, and for the same reason: They're outrage merchants, selling outrage to angry folks. The right wing equivalent to Jesse Jackson.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Where's the line between claiming false data is true and fuzzing to test the robustness of a system?
Because he should be able to gut Portland State and wear it like a skin suit because these papers were obvious parodies. IIRC one of them was some sort of "intersectional queer experience in dog parks" paper.
On the activist side, they seriously push ideas like it is racist to warn black people that an old building is not up to modern earthquake codes and might kill them if one hits. Cuz you know, white people only want to scare black folks out so they can gentrify the neighborhood.
And note: this is why the alt-right is gaining ground slowly, but steadily. That siren song "wouldn't it be nice if all of these assholes went away one way or another" starts to sound really fucking appealing after having this sort of bullshit shoved up your ass and backed by amenable authorities.
Under their rules, Sokal's hoax should have been punished.
The reactions of these academics (The ones who try to punish the people who did the hoax) is clumsy because it highlights their own intellectual mediocrity and eventually the poor value of their entire field if this procedure ends up being approved by the profession. They should thank Boghossian for exposing reviewers as frauds and claim they would not have been caught by such a hoax.
But they aren't even smart enough for this. They will pass for people trying to protect a scam at the expense of dumb college "students".
Social studies already have a very poor reputation.
Mark R. McLellan, ordered Boghossian to undergo training on human-subjects research as a condition for getting further studies approved.
What a sack of shit. And willfully clueless on top of it. This is standard journalistic investigative technique, and has been considered fine for centuries.
Someone should try to pass BS in front of this "ethics" guy. Hint: You don't need his permission or knowledge of "human studies techniques" to test if he is a fraud or liar or sack of shit.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
*yawn*
...because those "ten-tooth rube" deplorable in flyover country refuse to vote how far-left Social Justice Warrior activists insist they vote.
That, like making fun of our SJW betters, is unacceptable. Every knee must bend.
You will be made to care.
From the propaganda summary:
"Several of those absurd pieces were published."
I don't even have to read the pieces to determine whether they are absurd or not to determine that the summary is propaganda. Rather than simply telling us how and what to think about something we may not have even heard about (I didn't know about it) you could try just quoting the supposedly absurd pieces and letting the reader simply decide if they are absurd. Instead you told us how to think and for that I'm inclined to simply take the opposite opinion of the summary writer and not waste my time reading the articles or the rest of the summary.
Techbro assholes run this shitty site.
Exactly. You said it better than I did.
I don't respond to AC's.
NOT.
Boghossian has two accomplices, and yet the university's ire seems to be directed at him specifically. Someone seems very keen on making this personal. I cannot help but wonder why.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Sue for what, exactly? He was the one who broke the rules. He should get reprimanded or fired.
I don't respond to AC's.
They can't stand that he made their system look bad so they get him where they can. This is how the weak minded punish those who point out their incompetence. All for spite.
This is part of the "system": submit bullshit, and you get reprimanded (or fired). There's no "system" for checking to see every paper published is 100% accurate. There's also no "system" to make sure that nobody murders anybody else. What there is in both cases, is the threat of punishment. That's what's happening.
I don't respond to AC's.
If you want to understand just how messed up Grievance Studies is, this is Joe Rogan interviewing two of the "hoaxers", including Boghossian, the guy who PSU has started proceedings against. It's long but a good listen. The first 6 minutes are enough to give you the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg
You're supposed to troll as AC. Seriously, he would have been golden if he had gotten an ID from a homeless guy or something. Just do it a bit away, like in another state. You'd get to smirk when they track the origin of the papers to a tent under a bridge in Dallas, and you wouldn't lose your tenure.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Boghossian's behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."
Sure it does. Just not the ones that are now being investigated. The ethical behaviour of a lot of other people in the field is now in question, namely those who in the name of science have been producing, publishing and supporting made-up bullshit for decades.
The papers (I've read a few of them when the story went public) are a clear sign that something is very, very wrong with whoever accepted them for publication. The equivalent in hard science would be a reputable physics magazine publishing a paper about the aether.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's time for normal, decent, anti-sexist people to take our Universities and Press back from the hateful, jealous l, sexist feminists who are using them to brainwash the public with their outrageous manhate disguised as research and news.
Just like Julian Assange and countless other whistleblowers, journalists, and boys who mentioned that the Emperor is naked.
The establishment's reaction to being shown up is always the same.
Shoot the messanger. Then we can all go back to sleep.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
then don't complain when you get in trouble for breaking the law.
But I'm not even buying that. Like I said, there were plenty of ways to effective research the Social Justice Warrior movement and discuss the backlash to it. There was no need or reason to write phony papers with made up research. If you have a point to make, make it legitimately.
Not that it really matters. To be blunt You'd have better luck defending pedophiles than SJWs. The amount of hatred directed at that group is astonishing, especially given what little actual power they have. Seriously, we elected a Christian Dominionist (Mike Pence) to the second highest office in the land and the atheist and skeptic community can't shut up about SJWs. I don't get it. There are so many bigger fish to fry.
All that said I'd like to see some genuine analysis of the anti-SJW backlash. The left need to address it and get past it so that real economic policies can be pushed forward. Right now we're stuck with the same trickle down economics we always had while freaking out about some powerless girls saying silly things in college.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Clearly, the lack of credibility is not the problem. Writing bullshit articles is what everyone does. Only rarely does anyone get exposed.
Threatening the status quo is the problem. He should've just taken the credit and write more bunkum articles. Instead, he had to go and tell outsider people that being a fraud pays. He exposed himself, so now he's gotta hang twice. On the outside, for faking the science. But on the inside, for the exposing, threatening the livelihood of thousands of not-so-honest social "sciences" "researchers".
Social "sciences" has no scientific content left. They have professors that publicly admit to being "post-fact", IOW entirely unscientific. It's all ideology, perhaps even religion, with professors as high priests, and so on. This brings us to: Heretics aren't dangerous because they're wrong. They're dangerous because they might be right. And here's a heretic with proof he's right. Hanging AND burning is not good enough for such a horrible person. Or at least, that's what the university bureaucracy thinks of the whole affair. They really don't want to have to find and then admit they're hosting entire departments full of frauds, even though they really have to know by now. They like their cozy jobs.
You are absolutely right that exposure of activities like this and other excesses do grow an opposition to a liberal philosophy run amok. In fact, this is what alt or alternative right originally meant. It was a recognition that media and other powerful forces controlled the narrative, and they were burying any criticism or contrary evidence. Agenda has begun to turn into tribalism, and a new counter force was needed. An alternative, using social media and youtube, which was thought to be harder to control.
Since many extreme-left positions such as the ones the fake academic papers exposed are, frankly, illogical and not really defendable, it became necessary to resort to name calling to debunk critics. Judging by slashdot and other forums, it sadly has worked. It has become a powerful meme that represents the other, the boggeyman. It is not well defined since that would lend itself to debate, which needs to be avoided at all costs. Instead, it just means anything that you disagree with, to the worst possible extreme. If you disagree with someone about the tax code, it is ok to be violent to them because you can simply call them alt-right, meaning worse than NAZI. Convenient, huh?
This verbiage is dangerous because it dehumanizes others while avoiding any need to cogent thought. It removes all need for nuance or subtly of idea, and lumps anyone with even mild disagreement into the most extreme examples of any thought process.
Those who use terms like alt right need to be careful. At its core, it is anti-thought, anti-debate, and anti-democratic. It celebrates the most base of our instincts to avoid discussion and synthesis. The people on this forum should be better than this, are better than that.
then maybe I will (metaphorically speaking). Fake studies add nothing of substance to the public discourse. All they've done is waste a bunch of researchers time debunking them. I'd love to seem some actual research into the problem of SJWism but this kind of academic trolling (for lack of a better term) doesn't help anyone. It comes off as precisely the kind of cheap political stunt that it claims to oppose.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
can't have that. String up the mfer
So a group of professors took advantage of a trust based system in order to make a political point by submitting hoax papers for peer review. Yay persecuted heros?
Seriously, the guy was an ass who did not like a particular type of paper so he wrote a bunch of fake papers on the subject and held up their acceptance into various publications as proof at how bad academia is, when the whole point of publishing is to have a minimal mechanical review filting papers so they can be read by people in the field and responded to. He is basically complaining that academic censorship isn't stringent enough because he was able to 'fool' people who generally try to give authors the benefit of the doubt.
No wonder the university doesn't want him working with human research subjects... but of course he is a slashdot hero now because academics in anything other than making cool tech are bad and omg the liberals are coming for our penes!
They sure did. Those "academic" feminist journals got caught with their pants down.
It's a well-known problem with scientific journals that they are not robust against falsified data. This isn't really news. Did they attempt to submit fake articles that went against whatever they perceive to be the bias of the journals in question? From what I have read, they did not. Thus, they really only proved that falsified data can get an article published, which is something we knew. It proves nothing about the correlation between data quality and political leanings of the editors/reviewers. And honestly, the dildo article doesn't really even come to an interesting conclusion.
Worse than "ethical issues," Dr. B should be fired for not knowing how to successfully implement a social experiment so that it actually proves or disproves his hypothesis. I don't have a problem with him being an asshole making fun of other assholes. I have a problem with him wasting everybody's time by not designing the experiment correctly.
He deliberately published a huge amount of false data in a professional context; even if his intentions were good, this behaviour couldn't be accepted in a system having claims of seriousness. Scientific publications rely on the good faith of the authors, particularly so when the experiments are not reproducible, so it's really no surprise if the operation of such an environment will be compromised when its participants are outright malicious.
This hoax definitely shows that "gender studies" suffer from a lack of scientific rigour, but I'm convinced that we might find varying degrees of the same problem in other sectors, such as psychology and even economics.
in the academic world? You do a research paper debunking other, badly written papers. That's what peer review is. That would have been the appropriate response from an academic response.
This? This is just a cheap stunt. It adds nothing of substance to the discourse. It's frustrating because overzealous SJWs are a real problem for the left and one I haven't been able to figure out. Yes, sexual harassment is a real thing. So is rape. But then we waste time on the Gender Pay Gap which may or may not be real while the average American worker has lost 20% of their pay since the 70s. We're quibbling over 1-3% instead of the 20% we lost and we're divided to boot...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The "absurdity" of social sciences is not really the issue. Scientific Journals have been caught publishing AI generated nonsense as computer science papers, publishing pharmaceutical company marketing as medical papers, publishing a request to be removed from their mailing list as a paper and accepting a made-up researcher with no credentials as an editor.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The authors of the papers wrote 20 paper and 7 got through. They researched other papers that were accepted and deliberately patterned their papers to match. They also included hundreds of fake research data points to make the studies appear legitimate. Before that they'd done several much crazier papers that got caught. They worked on this for years. It was a well orchestrated hit piece from start to finish.
I don't expect an academic journal to vet everything. That's not the point. They look at a study, check if there's enough research data for it to appear worthy of peer review and then publish it so that it can be peer reviewed. This is is exactly what happened here. The system also worked as designed. Peer review revealed the papers to be bullshit and the people in question are now in trouble for faking research (rightfully so I might add).
There were _plenty_ of legitimate ways for them to go about their research. This is not one of them. They used the academic community for a cheap political stunt. If they're allowed to keep doing that then real research will suffer. Yes, studying gender topics is worth while. I for one would like to find a middle ground between obnoxious SJWs and actual sexual harassment and abuse.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they're researchers. The rules are quite a bit different. In Academia submitting false papers with fake research is _always_ an ethics violation. If you need to research something then find another way. Do a survey if you have to (with a control group). They abused a peer reviewed research paper. As has been pointed out by me and other posters they carefully crafted their papers to slip them them through, going so far as to research other, successful submissions and pattern their papers after them. They also included a ton of fake data, too much for the staff of a journal to fact check. In the face of all that data an honest journal would err on the side of caution and publish the paper to let peer review do it's job, which they did. The result was finding the studies were fakes.
These guys wasted a bunch of researchers time for a cheap stunt. They deserve the punishment they get. If they do it again they should be drummed out of the community as academic trolls. There are real problems in gender relationships. Maybe you don't think the academic community is properly addressing them. If you don't do a proper study with proper data and control groups and prove your point. That can and would add productively to the discourse. Personally, as I've said elsewhere, I'd love to find a way to move on from this SJW bullshit so we can focus the country's attention on economic issues.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What these guys did is exactly correct. You can't figure out SJWs because you're stuck in the wrong thinking. The exact response is to riducule. To Troll. To laugh at them. To send them fake papers and watch them publish them.
They have no integrity, and you expose that. Waste time with your own 'studies?' You'll never catch up to a fraud that way.
See also: Project Veritas
It would be interesting if somebody active in the fields that research social issues - like e.g. gender or race - were to spoof a paper on high-energy physics, genetics or number theory, and got it published in some periodical specialized in the target subject. Not necessarily a top one, but at least a peer-reviewed one. I would be impressed if they pull it off. Bear in mind that, doing it in the other direction (a hard-science expert spoofing a social issues research paper) has been done so many times in the last 20 years that seems to be almost trivial. Draw your own conclusions.
Institutional review boards get involved when there is Human Subject Research. Human Subject Research is a term defined by law and the review boards are involved to protect the well being or privacy of the subjects of the research.The laws are very reasonable and this case is clearly out of their scope. The purported "subjects" are fictitious and the actual subjects, the journal editors and reviewers, are not subjected to anything that does not fall well within the normal execution of their duties. Editors have no expectation of privacy and the privacy of the reviewers is not an issue as they are completely anonymous. There is nothing to affect their well being either, except for some deservedly blemished pride. Applying the rules for human subject research in this case would defy the purpose of the study as they require informed consent and reasonable rational for how the research will benefit the subjects. Imagine the authors going to the editor and asking: "Sir can I send you a fake article to show how bogus your review process is"?. The review board should conclude that this is not human subject research and wave it off. If anything, they should investigate the ethics of people who published "real" research in those journals. All this is probably done to help his colleagues in the humanities department who publish in those journals to save face or get some sort of vindication.
Well, as an Oregonian I have to say that most people here support this type of research, but we don't want public money to go to deception; even a useful deception that embarrasses people who deserve it.
So expect a "burn them all" sort of attitude in response to this. Outside of the Oregon higher education system, there is no valid concept of "circling the wagons" because those people aren't even in the same wagon train as the people cracking down on the guy in the story.
Also it is unwise for a person from the Philosophy department to do this, he had to know he was sacrificing his career. There is already skepticism that the field even does "research," considering that everything objective in the field was carved out as the other sciences, leaving philosophy only with the subject, the unproveable. A very useful field, IMO, critically important to objective thought, since we sense the world indirectly. But still, without generally having any solid basis for experiment.
A sociologist could more easily get away with this! A social-psychologist might not even get in trouble.
because that one seemed pretty messed up.
They picked a relatively small sub-section (3600 words out of 187k). That's about 160 lines (based on a quick lorem ipsom generation). They also didn't do a ctrl-f-replace. They carefully re-wrote the section.
I've pointed this out elsewhere, but these folks spent significant amounts of effort to get their stuff past the journals. The read other, successful submissions and carefully crafted theirs to match. Even then they got caught in peer review (which is kind of the entire point of the journals). The system worked exactly as designed.
All these people did is prove that peer review will eventually catch bullshit, which is the opposite of what they were trying to prove.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...Only the part about teaching critical thinking, something sorely lacking today.
I wonder what Boghossian hoped to accomplish beyond Sokal. Read about Sokal's hoax from 1995. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"...who search the reason of things
Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
Boghossian's behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."
That was the point you fucking morons.
I like Peter Boghossian. This sounds like another witch hunt.
Oh, the poor rugged individualists of Slashdot! So victimized by the inequities of these selfish ivy-tower academics! *THIS* will be the time that it all finally changes, all you guys have to do is virtue signal your way to the top of the engineering meritocracy. You showed those stupid liberals this time, guys!
My favorite part about this whole thing is that you can bitch and cry and bitch and cry, and But this fucking jackass and that walking gunt "editor" of his are done. Poor snowflakes. So sad. So vicitimized by academia.
So you're saying that instead of actually reading these papers I'm refereeing, I should just see if n is reasonable large? You, sir, are the problem.
From the man who brought you such favorites as:
"Free trade is one of the best tools we have for fighting extreme poverty" https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/1...
"Clinton passed welfare reform to end black Americans’ alleged “dependence” on the welfare state" https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Who loves identity politics more...
Milo Yiannopolulos speech shouted down by liberals at Berkley.
Condoleezza Rice cancels speech at Rutgers.
Ann Coulter cancels speech at Berkley due to protests.
So, since there is no issue of speech being limited in schools, I have to assume the above cases are ones of censorship you approve of.
So are you:
Homophobic?
A Racist?
Or Misogynist?
I will have to assume all three since you don't seem to have an issue with a gay man, a black woman, or a white woman being prevented from speaking at a college. To the point that you make the claim it doesn't even happen.
You liberals are the most disgusting people in existence, and you got caught lying again.
I applaud the trio for *some* of their work. The problem (for them) is they submitted data which they fabricated. I can't think of any situation in which data fabrication and submission to peer review is acceptable. "Acceptable" in the sense that there should be no consequences for the fraudsters. But again, they clearly showed (some of) the ridiculous trash that fouls the "scientific research" system. If I recall, they were caught, rather than a spontaneous confession. . The details escape me but if they, simultaneously with their false submissions, submitted time-capsules in which they detailed their fraud, I'd say they only deserve a slap on the wrist, but I don't think they did that. If not, more severe sanctions are appropriate.
to affect change. Mitt Rhomney has power. Donald Trump & Mike Pence have power. The blue haired girl at your local community college saying dumb things about sexism does not have any actual power. No one listens to her when it comes to matters of public policy. Her department the the college has relatively little funding.
The right has managed to make it so they don't have to provide reproductive health services to millions. They've modified text books in Texas to remove references to slavery. They've put their 2 new SCOTUS judges up and innumerable district court judges. In the same time the SJWs managed to get some butt-poses removed from video games and comics.
SJW has become a slur. It no longer has meaning. People find the worst examples of the left (mostly bitter, angry frightened women) and poke and prod them until they say stupid things. Then they hold up these fringes as though they're somehow representative of the left. If we did the same for the right you'd be shitting bricks. Some of the stuff Pat Robertson has said is terrifying. I've got guys on the right that want to stone gays, start a white ethno-state. Bring back child labor and slavery.
But this is all just pointless whataboutism. At the end of the day the anti-SJW crap is just the new Southern strategy. It's a distraction from economic issues. A villain for you to blame your woes on so you won't notice you're being robbed blind.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A couple college mates and I would do this all the time in our literature classes at a certain northern California UC.
Fun to see who get the most ridiculous paper passed.
Man, that place really showed me the dumb side of liberals.
Saw him first when he brought the fired google engineer James Damore to PSU for a symposium. There were a lot of outraged SJW's in the audience.
Second time saw him (along with his accomplice) on Joe Rogan where he talks about the papers he published. I laughed a few times as they described what got accepted into peer reviewed journals.
These fields shouldn't be called sciences, they are closer to religions.
I read carefully all replies so far.
None of the critics has any idea whatsoever what was done, why, how, and most importantly, why.
In order to think about anything you need data.
So why don't you start with listening to those two
https://youtu.be/FG6HbWw2RF4
https://youtu.be/AZZNvT1vaJg
The second is an interview with the very people who did it. Just hear how the reviewers were encouraging them to make the papers even more radical (untruthful). And how the most ridiculous paper actually won an award.
All of you here who criticize those brave and insightful people are useful idiots with tiny balls and even tinier brains.
You are also nasty and dangerous.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone who did this would be utterly unpersoned. Feminism is the new Catholic Church, burning heretics and witches and mounting crusades against the unbelievers.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Now they have to kill the messengers.
much less TFA. There _was_ academic rigor. The papers were published for peer reviewed and then peer review determined they were fake. They do a cursory check to make sure the paper isn't total nonsense. Then they publish the article so that it can be peer reviewed.
This is _exactly_ how it's supposed to work. Journals don't peer review. This is BAU/Functioning as Designed. The system worked.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This isn't any less ethical than any psychological study with a control group not told they're a control group - which happens all the time precisely because people act differently when they know they're in a control group in an experiment.
To see all these folks allegedly so grounded in science and being so science-y have a breakdown being the studied instead of the studiers itself is a telling psychological experiment on this crew. And, on a side note, the profession of psychology and its assorted methodologies is at best pseudoscientific; the current reproducibility crisis is testament to that.
Also worth mentioning the entire spectrum of academic navel-gazing - gender identity (or gender-whats-my-identity), pick-my-ethno study, psychobabbology, et al - is becoming known as the joke academy where people who aren't smart enough to get a "real" college degree go for their major. The kind of brittleness and snowflake-tears response elucidated here by that gang only perpetuates that (unmentioned in polite company) stereotype.
1) firstly propose a methodlogy to show the rate of admission of fake paper in various study field including STEM
2) present it as a way to make those field paper review better than a cheap "gotcha".
3) pass this through an ethic commission to make sure your methodlogy pass ethical muster
4) and the most important point : make SURE your university president or whichever management is above you do not disapprove.
We all know that some paper go through with poor quality. Cheap gotcha do not help. Most of us are already aware. If you want to help propose solution, methodology to evaluate the rate, and make sure to involve the local ethical commission. What he did was stupid.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I hate censorship, and IMO stupid ultra right wing conservative (with stupid idea should be allowed to speak up everywhere so that their utterly backward idiotic idea get shot down (and number 1 and 3 certainly belong to that category).
But YOU commit the logical error of pretending that his refusal of those people having a speech is NOT about the terrible things those people said or want (especially about 1 and 3) but of another unsaid factor. That alone tells more about you than about him : that you immediately went to their sexuality/gender/skin color shows your tendency of *reducing* people to that. Nothing in his post even hint at that ("That's right, one of the pillars of contemporary right-wing outrage is a completely fabricated issue, lacking even a kernel of truth and actually running counter to reality. Spread the word."). You are attributing your own reflex reaction to him.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I have worked out that the geological survey I work, someone decided to one day just lie they had a PhD. My predecessor was the only person with the spine to question it but it was too late. Upper management were not about to start investigating how they believed this guy, so the whistle blower got kicked out and I turned up.
If you still do not think all rules are ultimately designed to benefit the corrupt, try to wrap your head around blackmail laws.
Also it is unwise for a person from the Philosophy department to do this, he had to know he was sacrificing his career. There is already skepticism that the field even does "research," considering that everything objective in the field was carved out as the other sciences, leaving philosophy only with the subject, the unproveable. A very useful field, IMO, critically important to objective thought, since we sense the world indirectly. But still, without generally having any solid basis for experiment.
Philosophy is the department which studies proof. Logic is one of the primary branches of philosophy.
Case in point: if philosophy isn't well respected due to a perception the field doesn't do research, how would a person from the philosophy department which did in fact do research cause him to sacrifice his career through the effort?
That's not very inclusive towards cultures that have not - for perfectly valid reasons that we have no right to question - chosen to develop wheeled transport.
#triggered #ilovemytravois
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
factual correctness. I wish everyone trying to make a point would learn this.
he's going to be punished for publishing intentional falsehood? even though he did it to prove he could fool his peers?
-pyrrho
When an institution - including a government - is wanting to control troublesome critics, it doesn't need to persecute all of them, it merely needs to effect enough to frighten the rest of the group into silence. What we appear to have atm in the Western universities is that those who would offer substantially unacceptable ideas are being frightened into staying away from those topics, and the fields are being abandoned to the dominant ideology.
He'd knowingly attempted to publish false information in a science paper. This should be inexcusable. Fire him.
Now that we've established that people who publish such information should be promptly fired and due to recent discoveries regarding questionable filtration systems in science journals; form a nice task force of a couple thousand people that'll go over the materials published in said journals and track down similar offenders. Slowly, carefully, systematically. I'm sure the offending journals and places with a high potential percentage of offending employees would be delighted to make generous contributions towards the cause of ridding their ranks of such impostors. Hire him for the committee.
There. Justice served for past, future and present with several thousand jobs created in the process.
You're welcome, America.
Social scientists have established ethics committees whose say so is required before you carry out experiments on human beings where there are being deceived. He ignored this rule, and therefore has been a naughty boy. Presumably he ignored it because he feared a leak of his intentions, but it would be interesting to know whether he actually considered this.
OTOH those ethics committees are designed to protect the innocent. In this case the victims of the research should be able to cope with the implications; on this basis the police will required to check with an ethics committee every time they establish a stake out - though it can be argued that the court warrant requirement does serve this role to some extent...
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had to prove your claims when calling people racist. Lets see what top elected DNC officials have to say on this.
Cortez (D-NY) called Trump a racist without evidence.
Former president Carter called me a racist without evidence.
Both supported by the DNC leadership.
So fuck off. If you don't want people you agree with to be called racist, tell them to not be racist/misogynist/homophobic. After all the ONLY reason he wouldn't admit to these things is because he considers those people sub-human and censorship of them should be allowed. (Thanks Carter)
New name for him:
Gameboy(R)acist(M)isogynis(H)omophobe
Don't like being called these names, stop acting to prove they apply to you, and you seem to think Rice being censored is no big deal so you are only a racist. Going to keep calling you names like this until the left stops first. I'm pretty much fed up with people who support murders and saying killings of US citizens being shot by illegals is not "violence" and is "acceptable".
You all are so out of whack, its about time people start setting you straight.
In the same way that if I kill someone in the course of the war I'm a hero but if I kill someone on the next street I'm a murderer. These guys clearly and demonstrably set out to offer false data to prove a point about the failures of the system - and did so. If I offer a paper of false data to fool the Academy, I'm in a very different place.
What I found amusing about this whole thing was that the authors said - in a radio interview that I listened to, at least - that they were doing this to promote empiricism over ideology... but they didn't do the experiments.
It reminds me of Simeon Poisson's infamous thought experiment which "proved" that the wave theory of light was incorrect.
What if someone does these experiments - what if someone goes to the dog park and watches a thousand dogs humping other dogs - and finds that the real data matches the made-up data? As empiricists - if they are, in fact, empiricists - wouldn't that force them to accept that there might be something to the theories that they're ridiculing? That'd be embarrassing, I'd think.
Perhaps there shouldn't be any punishment as such. Perhaps the researchers should just be made to do the experiments which they claimed to do. That seems like it would be the most useful path forward for everyone involved. They say that their goal is to replace ideology with empiricism, so let's do that.
-- or you get sent to the re-education camps! See, they have learned their Socialist lessons.
Almost everybody talking about proof is in the math department.
Most people worried about logic are in the computer department.
Not a single one of the people I know with philosophy degrees claims it is about something abstract. They all cite subjective human understanding as their point of interest.
If they were doing research into proof, it would be math. If they were researching logic, it would be math or computer science. And if they were researching human understanding, it would either be anthropology or physiology.
Even the question of why people want to research things in the first place has been taken away by psychology.
They used to have word games, but that got moved to linguistics.
They're definitely expected to publish papers, and those papers are published in journals listed as research journals. That doesn't quite contradict anything I said, though.
This stuff is literary genius.
âoebecause of my own situatedness as a human, rather than as a dog, I recognize my limitations in being able to determine when an incidence of dog humping qualifies as rape.â
But, on a more serious note, the reality is that papers just don't get peer reviewed in a way that holds the reviewer to account. It's not a reasonable leap to conclude that the field is a fraud - though it probably is - based upon some hilarious fraud papers.
So as other posters have said, hold the reviewers to account.
Am trying to come up with a better title, but I'll wait for the movie to come out.
And folks find it strange that people like us skip reading TFS.
Insightful and funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSw79yRnDVs
Why isnâ(TM)t the professor identifying as a whistleblower? Itâ(TM)s probably his most effective way of protecting himself.
Hopefully, philosophy is making a come back, since the Finance field in academia has started crafting niches for behavioral and philosophical finance/economics. As a colleague of mine equated when a student asked why the hell Descartes' "animal spirits" are important in Keynes work: "Psychology is applied philosophy. Economics is mathematised psychology."
-This signature is strictly to prevent comments ending with questions or propositions.-
Portland is ground zero for Antifa - Tha Anti-First-Amendment crowd that pretends to be opposed to fascism - while wearing black and beating-up political opponents in the streets EXACTLY like Mussolini's "Black Shirts" in the original fascism. The elites of Portland know exactly what you should think, and they know exactly how you should behave - and they're just trying to figure out how to force utopia on you.
The local politicians there are toxically corrupt, actually aligned with antifa, and enabling that group to beat people up while ordering the law enforcement folks to stand back and do nothing. Their pals in academia there are enforcers of academic fascism - this attack on academics who exposed them is just the ivory tower version of a black shirt beatdown.
Portland is what modern fascist tactics look like when applied by a totalitarian elite bent on societal control but who have not yet gotten to the part where they try implementing socialism indirectly through control of corporations - they'll get there eventually. The morons running Portland are NOT yet actual fascists - they're not competent enough to manage the full mess yet. They are just aspirational at this point and hopefully the public will get disgusted and put these evil twits back into whatever closet they have emerged from before they get any more powerful. Nobody falls into oppression by complete surprise - evil jack-booted scum always expose themselves with their tactics long before their evil becomes unstoppable. The question is always whether the public will push back or will allow themselves to be bullied because resisting the left seems just too much of a hassle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Things have never been the same since postmodernism took over. Philosophy used to be all logic and epistemology. Now it's all "mah feels".
write a peer review paper of the research papers that you take exception with, debunking their data points.
If you want to discredit junk science the correct way to do it is with real science, not more junk science. "Fight fire with fire" sounds nice but you just wind up burning your house down.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Daduq kind of click bait headline is that?? I don't come here for opinionated garbage. That's one of the reasons I like this site and nerds generally. They are good at being logical and not lacing headlines with their own spin. I get so sick of it, all I see in the media these days. Please for the love of God, just don't. I didn't come here to read the article and I refuse. Fix the headline to read more encyclopedic and you may have my attention. Otherwise I'm going to assume tfa is more of the same.
Philosophy is a discipline rather than a science. Math is a discipline rather than a science. Both can have proofs rather than experiments. Philosophy is just as important as math for the sciences. The actions taken by the professor fall firmly within the realm of philosophy as philosophy is at the foundation of the knowledge acquisition and development process.
" but we don't want public money to go to deception; even a useful deception that embarrasses people who deserve it."
This is the mediocrity and just plain intellectual fail that irks those with healthy minds. The use of the word "deception" is very foolish. The purpose of the presentation of ridiculous studies to test the publishing system is quite noble, good and needed. To call this deception when in fact it is revealing is wrongheaded. It is like finding every math word problem that does not have an actual real world example and demanding that those word problems be removed because they are "deceptive." Your weak mindedness is also apparent when you talk of embarrassment and deserving. Those are emotional social standing words. The problems exposed by the professor are functional problems. The stakes are not personal social status things, they are the factual integrity of our academic system. It isn't a matter of anyone deserving embarrassment. It is a matter of society desperately needing to eliminate the journals that encourage absurdity.
Something that Big Giant Orange Head is rumored to be into.
Kindly tell me more, asking for BGOH.
Carving out part of the field of Philosophy to be taught in the School of Business merely shrinks the field further!
It isn't as if handing out PhDs to other fields increased the clout of Philosophy! The list of fields that grant those degrees is just a list of fields that used to be part of Philosophy, but were taken away. Same here.
Postmodernism can't take over. It is a deconstructive phase, a transition from the old modern to the new modern.
Your precious feelies are implicated because of your politics, not because of postmodernism.
There are a lot of crappy pay-to-play journals out there that will publish any PoS they get. A study exposing them would be great, but first think about the consequences of intentionally falsifying data and discuss what you are doing with the people most likely to fire you.
Thanks for the challenge. I realise that the police don't need a warrant for a stake out; the point I was making, badly, is that a strict application of the ethics committee principle would be the equivalent of requiring it, whilst the need for a search warrant is the ethics committee working correctly.
He found a flaw in a system and 'exposed' it by using it repeatedly. These results were predictable.