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."
...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.
-- "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?
His papers weren't just "shoddy" though. They were deliberately over-the-top absurd to prove a point that these journals are thirsting for absurd narratives to hold up as science.
7 out of the 20 papers got published. That is more than a few "slipping through". It throws the entire system into doubt when over a third of the fake "research" is published and reviewed.
Doing a find/replace on Mein Kampf to change the target of hate and getting it accepted by an accredited journal is quite a bit more than a "shoddy paper slipping through".
If you look into it a bit more, you'll see they were in the process of doing many more of these "fake" papers and got caught out. They were forced to go public before they were done.
If you manage to get a modified excerpt of Mein Kampf published in a professional journal, you should be given kudos for exposing a serious problem.
I'm curious, what other whistleblowers do you think are deserving of "disciplinary action" for exposing how screwed up something is?
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.
His papers were much more than that. Some of them came to conclusions that were not only not supported, but actually the opposite of what the included data showed. These should have been rejected flat out by any halfway competent reviewer. They were clearly accepted not for their scientific insight or contribution, but for the narrative they supported.
That should be the real scandal. These papers should be under fire, and those reviewers should be investigated.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org