Feminist glaciology thread

  last edited: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:30:58 -0600  
This twitter thread attempts a defense of the “feminist glaciology” paper, followed by a discussion/debate. One of the main problems I have with this paper, along with many critiques of “feminist science” and “feminist mathematics”, is their claim that female researchers would pursue fundamentally different hypotheses or methods compared to male researchers. This undermines a major aspect in the project to increase participation and inclusion of women in the sciences: we are trying to counter the idea of gender differences with respect to scientific aptitude. There is no woman-science or man-science, there is just science.

No thanks pal

Hungary’s prime minister is trying to expunge gender studies from their universities. This is no doubt related to the Boghossian hoaxes. Here’s the thing: critics like Boghossian are, from their perspective, trying to improve gender studies, not kill it. The criticisms are aimed at very specific subsets of the field, and in no way undermine gender as a topic of study and research. And most of all, no university or research field needs intrusive meddling from a politician. Obviously they can’t improve their methods if they aren’t allowed to study.

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban bans gender studies


In a move that has enraged universities, students in Hungary will no longer be able to undertake degrees in gender studies after the discipline was banned.

#Boghossian #hoax #CriticalTheory #RightWing
And in the background, the clamorous silence of Europe...
BDS is petty: professors hope to alter world affairs by denying letters of recommendation to their students

Academic culture is supposed to be a model of cooperation that transcends political, cultural, national conflicts. I’ve worked on joint collaborations that included American, Iranian and Israeli researchers, all working together with common professional goals. It’s supposed to be a demonstration of what we can accomplish through positive engagement. But then something like BDS comes along and tries to derail the whole project, putting political conflict ahead of academic values. The results are petty, damaging, and ultimately ineffectual. These professors are trying to change the world by withholding letters of recommendation from students who want to study in Israel. This is simply an act of sabotage against young people who depend on them but don’t share their views. Just nauseating.

Why Evolution Is TrueWhy Evolution Is True wrote the following post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:15:17 -0600
Discipline for University of Michigan prof who wouldn’t write a letter for a student to study in Israel; but another UM teacher refuses to write a similar letter on anti-Israel grounds
Well cut off my legs and call me Shorty! (Is that ableist?) You may remember the fracas about John Cheney-Lippold, a University of Michigan (UM) cultural studies professor who refused to write a letter for a student, Abigail Ingber, who wanted to study in Tel Aviv for a semester. (See my four posts on it […]
View article

#BDS #israel #CriticalTheory #activism
Interview with the Boghossian hoax crew

  last edited: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:58:16 -0600  
Writers Behind ‘Grievance Studies Scandal’ Address Criticisms - Quillette


Do you remember the article on dog rape culture by Helen Wilson that was published in a feminist geography journal earlier this year? What about the paper on challenging male homophobia through using anal sex toys? On October 2, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the feminist academics behind these articles don’t actually exist. They’re pseudonyms adopted by three intellectuals in an elaborate hoax designed to expose alleged shoddy scholarship in activist disciplines they dub “grievance studies.” Mathematician James A. Lindsay, British writer Helen Pluckrose, and Portland State philosophy professor Peter Boghossian have become an overnight sensation. They’ve earned recognition from academics all around the world including high-profile figures like Jordan Peterson and Steven Pinker. But their detractors have also stepped out in full force. Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian have agreed to an exclusive interview with Quillette to address the issues raised by their critics. For the record, I know the three writers but had no prior knowledge of their year-long project before the story broke. The following text has been transcribed from an …

#Boghossian #CriticalTheory #hoax #Quillette
All the peer reviews of the hoax papers

Via #Leiter

Latest Sokal hoaxers make public all the referee reports they got
Here. (Thanks to Philippe Lemoine for the pointer.) Meanwhile, elsewhere in cyberspace, Justin Weinberg (South Carolina), the leading cyber-cheerleader for the New Infantilism, assures us that the paper accepted by Hypatia is, in fact, just fine. Whew, that's a relief....

#Boghossian #CriticalTheory #hoax
What is a "hoax" paper?

I've been trying to understand what it means for the Boghossian group's papers to be "hoaxes" or "pranks". People refer to them as "hoaxes" because they were written with ulterior motives, not because they contain any fabricated or fraudulent contents (maybe they do, but no one is mentioning it). I've published well over 50 peer reviewed articles. Supposing I pick one of them and declare, "I was insincere when I wrote this!" Does that make it a hoax? If I contact all the people who cited my work to tell them it's a hoax, their first response would be to ask, "what did you falsify?" If I didn't falsify anything, then it's not a hoax. It's a real paper regardless of any ulterior motives I may have.

#CriticalTheory #Boghossian #publishing #hoax
The "feminist Mein Kampf" paper

  last edited: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:28:39 -0600  
I found a copy of the hoax paper accepted for publication in Affilia, which adapted a selection from Mein Kampf that was evidently well reviewed when framed in the preferred phrasing of deconstructionists. The paper is attached.

#CriticalTheory #Boghossian
Peer review of “canine rape culture” paper

  last edited: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:53:23 -0600  
This peer review pertains to one of the Boghosian hoax papers. The discussion is truly mind boggling. These are academic professionals, educators, and allegedly scholars. This paper didn’t just slip past the review process, it was accepted with enthusiasm. It’s especially worth noting that the success rate of these hoax papers is better than that of many struggling early career scholars in the field. The hoaxers have day jobs, and this was a side project. It raises a devastating question for the field: if untrained authors can be successful cranking out satirical gibberish, what incentive is there for anyone to do genuine or sincere scholarship?

Twitter Search / RealPeerReviewTwitter Search / RealPeerReview wrote the following post Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:51:13 -0600

Reviewer 1 is very concerned about ethics of inspecting dog genitals without dog's consent, and the inequality that represents relative to human "participants" pic.twitter.com/vf6dhe0ykr



"Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper." Amazing.

#CriticalTheory #Boghosian
I notice it is redacted to protect the guilty
Another hoax hits postmodern journals

  last edited: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:26:05 -0600  
Another hoax strikes academic journals in postmodern/critical theory. This time, a systematic wave of nonsense papers were submitted to a variety of reputable journals, and several were accepted. Like I said last time, this kind of test happens in other fields (including mine). If, in a double-blind review process, you cannot reliably distinguish hoax articles from real ones, then AT BEST your editorial and review practices are broken. The knee-jerk response is to cry foul against the academic outsiders who effected this test. But the real blame lies with the editorial board, the reviewers, and the standards of scholarship within the field itself.

It sounds like these journals are planning to block future hoaxes by carefully vetting the *identities* and *credentials* of future authors. In other words, access to publication will be filtered by who you are, who you know, who your advisor is, what your affiliation is... not much better than a big vanity press club.

My own field went through blips of replication crises, fabrication/plagiarism crises in the past two decades. Other fields, most recently areas of psychology and sociology, are currently grappling with their own crises. The fields targeted by this hoax should now recognize that they have a legitimation crisis of their own. This is not something that anyone has done to them from the outside. This is a structural, systemic problem within critical theory, exactly the kind of thing that critical theorists claim to know best.


#CriticalTheory #Boghosian
In this Quillette article, several academics give their reactions to the Boghosian-led blitz of hoax papers. One of the responses quotes this paragraph from a serious philosophy paper (not one of the hoaxes):

A good example is an article from the Australasian Journal of Philosophy in which a feminist describes a “phallic drama” involving two statements, p and ~p (the negation of p):

There is really only one actor, p, and ~p is merely its receptacle. In the representation of the Venn diagram, p penetrates a passive, undifferentiated universal other which is specified as a lack, which offers no resistance, and whose behavior it controls completely.

Never mind that we could define p as ~q, and then q can have her way with p all she wants. Seriously though, it’s quite distressing to see people try to use the label “feminist” as a screen to protect shoddy bullshit. It doesn’t do feminism any favors to be associated with this kind of gibberish, it only benefits the authors who claim that their work is some kind of vanguard, only comprehensible to these embattled elites. Or... maybe they are just a cult of malevolent narcissists.

The Grievance Studies Scandal: Five Academics Respond - Quillette


Editor’s note: For the past year scholars James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian have sent fake papers to various academic journals which they describe as specialising in activism or “grievance studies.” Their stated mission has been to expose how easy it is to get “absurdities and morally fashionable political ideas published as legitimate academic research.”  To date, their project has been successful: seven papers have passed through peer review and have been published, including a 3000 word excerpt of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of Intersectionality theory and published in the Gender Studies journal Affilia. Below is a response to the scandal from five academics who are currently researching, publishing and teaching in the fields of Philosophy, English Studies, Behavioral Genetics and Economics. From Foolish Talk to Evil Madness — Nathan Cofnas (Philosophy) Nathan Cofnas is reading for a DPhil in philosophy at the University of Oxford. His work focuses on the philosophy of biology, broadly construed. He has published on such topics as innateness, the ethical implications of individual differences in intelligence, and Jewish …