1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Three Scholars Create 20 Bullshit Papers

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  2. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I had a lot of fun hearing about this. It makes it quite clear the bias and the epic level of cranial-rectal inversion that deeply affects most of academia.
    ethics likes this.
  3. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I want to clarify a bit here about the "C-R-I" I wrote about.

    We have the "hard" sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.) where an experiment can be repeated over and over, yet will get the same results. This is where "Isamov's Postulation" (Most scientific breakthroughs don't happen with a shout of "Eureka!" but a quiet "Hmm... That's strange.") happens.

    The "soft" sciences (psychiatry, sociology, etc.) involve the randomness of humans, so most of the time all logic goes sideways right out the window. I think we had a post about it here a couple years back, repeated sociological experiments actually have a "diminishing rate of repeatability." If an experiment on the first time yielded a 20% change, a repeat, even with all of the known factors accounted for, the result of the repeat is like 12% and so on.

    The "softest" sciences (gender studies, social construct, patriarchy, etc.) are trying to hide in the coattails of the first two, masking a political agenda for science. This is exactly why they are susceptible to what the three people in the article did.

    The softest sciences are great for playing buzzword bingo.


Share This Page