DiscussMormonism.com

Water Dog wrote:http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

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.

6EQUJ5 wrote:

Water Dog wrote:http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

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. For example, do you respond to a bank fraud case by saying, I guess banking doesn't really work after all?

Lemmie wrote:For example, do you respond to a bank fraud case by saying, I guess banking doesn't really work after all?

A friend of mine asked me about a bank fraud case just this week. And yes, that was precisely my response.

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.

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?

6EQUJ5 wrote:A friend of mine asked me about a bank fraud case just this week. And yes, that was precisely my response.

You make my point exactly, then. And of course its entirely believable that you recently had a discussion about bank fraud wherein you responded by doubting that banks perform a legitimate service.

Lemmie wrote: And of course its entirely believable that you recently had a discussion about bank fraud wherein you responded by doubting that banks perform a legitimate service.

Thank you.

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.

when an apologist says this what they really mean is since peer review failed in academia at some point, then mopologetics should erect a peer review system that works just as badly to justify whatever they want because anything can be right.

A friend of mine asked me about a bank fraud case just this week. And yes, that was precisely my response.

Why? I had bank fraud happen to me once. It was a small amount of money I lost compared to my overall finances, and I got it all back pretty quickly, including the over-draft protection fees that were technically my fault. I wondered why this happened. And then I realized that had it not happened, then much longer down the road with a lot more money in the bank, I may feel less secure about banks -- maybe my money isn't safe there or I will still loose a lot of money if I ever have fraud against me? I may have panicked and taken out large sums and hid under my mattress well down the banking road. So having that bad experience early on as a banking client was God's way of ensuring I was on the right path with money kept in a bank.

Water Dog wrote:http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

Be honest with yourself when your link isn't as well receive as you predict, as LDS critics at least on this site, aren't generally the skeptic.org type, and therefore as easily dismissed as you are hoping your link will prove. You should pay more attention to DT who is a step ahead of you.

What's funny is that ever since Sokal warned of loosening standards in academia based on getting his paper published in a perspective-oriented journal, scientific progress still manages to happen while culture studies still manages to exist.

It's almost like postmodern feminism -- something that can best be taken to task by aggressive dickish behavior -- is a social construct of the skeptic crowd.

Sokal comes to mind.

Water Dog wrote:

Gadianton wrote:Be honest with yourself when your link isn't as well receive as you predict, as LDS critics at least on this site, aren't generally the skeptic.org type, and therefore as easily dismissed as you are hopping your link will prove. You should pay more attention to DT who is a step ahead of you.

what?

I am not sure but I think Gadianton completely misconstrued your intent. It sounds like he thinks you are defending LDS apologist with an attack on the value of peer review. I suspect your intention was many miles away from that.

You following Jordan Peterson perchance?

Water Dog wrote:
what?

I suspect your intention was many miles away from that.

You following Jordan Peterson perchance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gztiMdsGA