| > I read over a couple of the papers. The descriptions of them by the authors did not match the content of the papers. So did I. The dog park paper more or less matches its description. The fat bodybuilding paper is exactly as described. The dildos paper is as described. Do you have any descriptions aside from the Hooters one that you take issue with? > Yes, the methodology isn't that great, and the paper was rejected. Sure, but lots of them were not. I'm not sure why you would focus on a paper that was rejected when they had 7 that were accepted. > More generally, the "study" isn't selecting random journals to see if they could defraud -- it is instead aimed at specific academic targets and a "test to failure" scattershot mechanism is used. Thus we have no idea whether these journals are any more discriminating than, say, PLOS or Nature. True, though I have a hard time believing you could get the same result in any STEM discipline, though i'm certainly open to data to the contrary. > Ultimately, I had some sympathy for the Sokal experiment in that it seemed to say something about the interaction of literary theory and physics. I don't get the same sense that there's much here other than "confirmation bias exists, even among gender studies folks!!!" which seems like it wouldn't take 3 people 10 months to figure out, and could be done in a much more direct way, and honestly isn't that shocking or rattling a conclusion. I think the point of all this is that the epistemology of the field is intellectually bankrupt. It's not just confirmation bias. It's that within the epistemology of gender studies, they aren't even wrong. |