honorentheos wrote: I'm also biased to favor this -
The most potent among the human susceptibilities to corruption by fashionable nonsense is the temptation to uncritically endorse morally fashionable nonsense.
That was my take away conclusion as well. I think it is one worth keeping in mind.
Someone said that peer review was the very worst system for its purposes, except for all the rest.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Fence Sitter wrote:Someone said that peer review was the very worst system for its purposes, except for all the rest.
Well put.
I don't think the article itself was intended to raise a point generally against peer review as a process. More as critique of gender studies and pay-for-publication sites posing as legitimate peer-reviewed outlets. Without the Mormon apologetic context of this board, I doubt it would have taken the turn it did drawing vast conclusions from half-vast data if you will.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Fence Sitter wrote:Someone said that peer review was the very worst system for its purposes, except for all the rest.
Well put.
I don't think the article itself was intended to raise a point generally against peer review as a process. More as critique of gender studies and pay-for-publication sites posing as legitimate peer-reviewed outlets. Without the Mormon apologetic context of this board, I doubt it would have taken the turn it did drawing vast conclusions from half-vast data if you will.
So true. I don't think Water Dog intended it that way either, but still, the very first commenter after the OP couldn't resist:
....I'd figure that the peer-review process would weed this stuff out but I guess not.
Lemmie wrote:So true. I don't think Water Dog intended it that way either, but still, the very first commenter after the OP couldn't resist:
....I'd figure that the peer-review process would weed this stuff out but I guess not.
6EQUJ5 wrote:You aren't surprised that a peer-review process missed the citation of 5 non-existent papers/journals? I certainly am.
Why are you defending the editors/reviewers who allowed a paper with 5 fake citations to be published"?
I guess Lemmie likes Nibley-esque quality in scholarship. I don't. I like it when journals check sources before publishing papers.
Amazing that a critic of Mopologetics would be in favor of such garbage editing.
Fascinating the number of elements 6EQUJ5 has incorrectly ascribed to me.. I am not: 1) "defending the editors/reviewers who allowed a paper with 5 fake citations to be published," nor do I 2) "like Nibley-esque quality in scholarship, " and finally, I am not 3) "in favor of such garbage editing."
I think 6EQUJ5 must have missed my initial post, in response to his:
Lemmie wrote:
6EQUJ5 wrote:Ha! That's pretty funny that they pulled this off. I'd figure that the peer-review process would weed this stuff out but I guess not.
The process of peer review is not the issue. The point of the hoax was to bring to light the lack of scholarship in certain types of cultural studies. Any process can be done badly; an expose doesn't invalidate the process itself but rather points to the necessity of ensuring the process is done correctly...
Given 6equj5's continued emphasis on the peer review issue when the OP was clearly about something else, honorentheos seems to have been right on target with this:
Without the Mormon apologetic context of this board, I doubt it would have taken the turn it did, drawing vast conclusions from half-vast data if you will.
Water Dog wrote:Gadiantion, I think you're overthinking this to the point of buzz killing what is simply a hilarious prank. Some pseudo-scientists got trolled. It's funny. That's it. What the lesson might be I'm not sure, I can think of several, but I'll leave that to the individual readers to sort out. I wasn't making some statement about apologists or anything the sort...
That's why you should never, EVER "link-and-run." Explain a little about what's at the end of the link, and give us your take on the material therein.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
They published in a pay to play journal of no impact. The way the skeptic community is dancing in the endzone on this one is embarrassing.
It's a funny parody, and it being published could possibly be used to comment on the ill-repute of the journal system they were publishing in, but instead it's being used to condemn gender studies as nonsense altogether with a minor nod to the problem being predatory journals with little standards and less credibility. Sokal got published in a better journal and managed to be much more cautious about what conclusions could be drawn from it.
Lemmie wrote:The process of peer review is not the issue. The point of the hoax was to bring to light the lack of scholarship in certain types of cultural studies. Any process can be done badly; an expose doesn't invalidate the process itself but rather points to the necessity of ensuring the process is done correctly. For example, do you respond to a bank fraud case by saying, I guess banking doesn't really work after all?
the counter point truly cannot be that "banking really does work"...if the DNC allows for Obama to be elected are we to say that the DNC doesn't work?...ehem, sorry...do you not condemn the entire RNC because of Trump?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Lemmie wrote:The process of peer review is not the issue. The point of the hoax was to bring to light the lack of scholarship in certain types of cultural studies. Any process can be done badly; an expose doesn't invalidate the process itself but rather points to the necessity of ensuring the process is done correctly. For example, do you respond to a bank fraud case by saying, I guess banking doesn't really work after all?
the counter point truly cannot be that "banking really does work"...if the DNC allows for Obama to be elected are we to say that the DNC doesn't work?...ehem, sorry...do you not condemn the entire RNC because of Trump?
? try reading the whole thread. You're missing the point entirely.