Affiliation:
1. Centre for Brain Science, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom
Abstract
In 2018, Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose published four “hoax” articles within a number of disciplines that rely on critical theory (e.g., gender studies, feminism). When revealing the project, the authors argued that they wanted to expose these fields as being primarily motivated by ideology and social justice rather than knowledge generation. Their method tested the hypothesis that editors and reviewers will support papers that advocate “ludicrous” ideas including “fat bodybuilding.” In the pages of this journal, I presented a critique of their procedure, and the authors have provided a commentary on my article. After discussing the issue of whether their project was a hoax or not, I will argue that the crux of the matter is whether the papers were ludicrous/absurd. I will show how the authors made a fundamental error in their method; they failed to assess whether their ideas were indeed ludicrous/absurd.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference7 articles.
1. Why the “Hoax” Paper of Baldwin (2018) Should Be Reinstated
2. Cole G. G., Millett A. Forthcoming. “Just How Ludicrous Is Fat Bodybuilding?”
3. “The Grievance Studies Affair” Project: Reconstructing and Assessing the Experimental Design
4. Lindsay J. A., Boghossian P., Pluckrose H. 2018. “Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship.” Areomagazine.com. Retrieved November 2018. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
5. Understanding the “Grievance Studies Affair” Papers and Why They Should Be Reinstated: A Response to Geoff Cole
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Evaluating and Improving the Peer Review Process;Applying Metascientific Principles to Autism Research;2023