The joke of academic journals

[Underestimated]

During the lockdown I discovered Joe Rogan's podcast. I remember him from Newsradio back in the 90's and of course "Fear Factor". I perused his non-MMA and comedian catalog and found quite a few really interesting interviews. This is one of them. I've always been a bit of a cynic about peer reviewed journals touting academic papers. I understand how these papers are a needed vice in collegiate professor tenure as well as gaining grant money for specific disciplines. But no other podcast have I chuckled as much (maybe Bobcat Goldthwait was a close second). Basically these two characters decided to submit peer reviewed papers on absurd topics with clearly insane conclusions, and amazingly seven were published and one got an award ( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" ) They also pulled out parts of Mien Kampf and replaced words to correlate with intersectional feminism, also peer reviewed and published. I applaud them for making a mockery of academic journals, as these peer reviewed papers are generally worthless gibberish meant to stroke other academic's ego's for their career progress. That legitimate published journals rival the hoaxes and even surpass them demolishes any legitimacy these peer reviewed papers had.

Other peer reviewed and published papers by the hoaxters:
"Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding"
"Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"
"An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant"

Here's the 26 minute interview with Rogan





Here's the background video about the three and why they did it

 

[JasperL]

I don't see anything at all questionable about using anecdotes, n=3, in 'soft' academic fields, condemning all roughly 28,000 peer reviewed journals, do you?

I didn't listen to the segment, but I'm indirectly involved in that subject through my wife, and there is much to criticize about it. The question is what is a better system? We could have no referees at all and that might work, but the peer review system is actually helpful in many cases, some of which I've been very involved with. Of course it's not perfect.

The reviewers can find out the authors, even when the papers are submitted supposedly with that information omitted, because the big papers are presented at conferences, sent around for pre-submission comments, presented at other universities, and often published as 'drafts' on the authors' websites. And that means 'name' authors get waved through, while newcomers don't. The reviewers miss a bunch of stuff, because they are human and fallible. The whole publish or perish thing is in many ways kind of absurd. It's valuable for college rankings, and not much else, but that's enough for promotion to be about 99% publishing record, 1% everything else, since that everything else is normally fine with anyone operating at a reasonable level in academia.

But this is about peer review - that process. What should replace it? Does eliminating it make the system overall better in some way? How?

 

[Phys251]

During the lockdown I discovered Joe Rogan's podcast. I remember him from Newsradio back in the 90's and of course "Fear Factor". I perused his non-MMA and comedian catalog and found quite a few really interesting interviews. This is one of them. I've always been a bit of a cynic about peer reviewed journals touting academic papers. I understand how these papers are a needed vice in collegiate professor tenure as well as gaining grant money for specific disciplines. But no other podcast have I chuckled as much (maybe Bobcat Goldthwait was a close second). Basically these two characters decided to submit peer reviewed papers on absurd topics with clearly insane conclusions, and amazingly seven were published and one got an award ( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" ) They also pulled out parts of Mien Kampf and replaced words to correlate with intersectional feminism, also peer reviewed and published. I applaud them for making a mockery of academic journals, as these peer reviewed papers are generally worthless gibberish meant to stroke other academic's ego's for their career progress. That legitimate published journals rival the hoaxes and even surpass them demolishes any legitimacy these peer reviewed papers had.

Other peer reviewed and published papers by the hoaxters:
"Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding"
"Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"
"An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant"

Here's the 26 minute interview with Rogan





Here's the background video about the three and why they did it

Fun fact, it was socially liberal books that the Nazis burned. Particularly those by the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Sexology) and their progressive publications on human sexuality.

 

[Underestimated]

I don't see anything at all questionable about using anecdotes, n=3, in 'soft' academic fields, condemning all roughly 28,000 peer reviewed journals, do you?

I didn't listen to the segment, but I'm indirectly involved in that subject through my wife, and there is much to criticize about it. The question is what is a better system? We could have no referees at all and that might work, but the peer review system is actually helpful in many cases, some of which I've been very involved with. Of course it's not perfect.

It's not the system necessarily that is the problem, it's the lack of introspection. The basic purpose was to prove to the academy papers could and would be written and published if a preconceived conclusion aligned with the political or social construct. The hope was, by executing a successful hoax, the academy would question their stance and position, but they did the opposite. They simply started verifying individuals. They did not want to question their pseudo-reality nor question their reinforcement echo chamber within their respective disciplines.

The reviewers can find out the authors, even when the papers are submitted supposedly with that information omitted, because the big papers are presented at conferences, sent around for pre-submission comments, presented at other universities, and often published as 'drafts' on the authors' websites. And that means 'name' authors get waved through, while newcomers don't. The reviewers miss a bunch of stuff, because they are human and fallible. The whole publish or perish thing is in many ways kind of absurd. It's valuable for college rankings, and not much else, but that's enough for promotion to be about 99% publishing record, 1% everything else, since that everything else is normally fine with anyone operating at a reasonable level in academia.

But this is about peer review - that process. What should replace it? Does eliminating it make the system overall better in some way? How?

It's not about replacement, it's about basing your beliefs on evidence, not on preconceived sociological reality. For example, in the hoax paper "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" a parallel between dogs humping was carried through to human male rape culture using black feminism theory, to conclude women need to train men like they train dogs to curb male rape culture. The peer reviewer in this case read and believed exactly what they wanted to believe, and provided criticisms that in the authors words, always made the paper MORE extreme. If academic journals are used only to further preconceived beliefs and not forward new ideas and truths, I'd suggest it's not just broken but useless. However, I will say that many of these people teach what they publish. That is much more damaging than just college rankings.

 

[Omniscient]

as an INTJ people often think i sound smart. they listen to me speak and later tell me how smart i am

but really im just a bit better at abstract concepts and explaining things

my underlying wisdom is not any better

one guy told me i was smart because he heard use a word he didnt know. 'meta-layer' which i actually just made up to explain something in one of my abstractions

i turn everything into an abstraction. otherwise my mind cant process it.

university is a construct of the INTJ mind. and pushed onto everyone so they can be "smart" like us.

 

[JasperL]

It's not the system necessarily that is the problem, it's the lack of introspection. The basic purpose was to prove to the academy papers could and would be written and published if a preconceived conclusion aligned with the political or social construct. The hope was, by executing a successful hoax, the academy would question their stance and position, but they did the opposite. They simply started verifying individuals. They did not want to question their pseudo-reality nor question their reinforcement echo chamber within their respective disciplines.

Who are the 'academy' and what evidence do you have that 'they' did not want to question their alleged 'pseudo-reality' etc. You're using anecdotes, n=3 or 5, to condemn something you're calling 'the academy' but that you've not defined, because it involves at least dozens of disciplines and 28,000 peer reviewed publications. In the 'academy' as I understand the term - the broad academic research community - of course that should be treated as obvious nonsense. You're not citing anything more rigorous than a late night talk show doing selectively edited man on the street interviews to prove the ignorance of the public.

It's not about replacement, it's about basing your beliefs on evidence, not on preconceived sociological reality. For example, in the hoax paper "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" a parallel between dogs humping was carried through to human male rape culture using black feminism theory, to conclude women need to train men like they train dogs to curb male rape culture. The peer reviewer in this case read and believed exactly what they wanted to believe, and provided criticisms that in the authors words, always made the paper MORE extreme. If academic journals are used only to further preconceived beliefs and not forward new ideas and truths, I'd suggest it's not just broken but useless. However, I will say that many of these people teach what they publish. That is much more damaging than just college rankings.

Well of course anecdotes get us nowhere. To carry through the dog park analogy, you're advancing a theory based on dog shit for evidence. All the piece shows, at best, is something about the review process at a handful of journals in one small area of 'the academy' and you're using what is essentially a man on the street interview to condemn all of academia and conclude peer review is useless. I've been part of it and there are as I said lots of problems, the process isn't useless at all.

And the evidence you're using is akin to me going through my list of known "Republicans" and selecting five of them non-randomly - I'm thinking they're pretty stupid, and can be easily led wherever I want in a series of questions - doing 5 field interviews with self described 'republicans' and then writing a paper concluding that "the Republican Party" is just amazingly stupid and bigoted! Should the entire party react somehow to my research results, with evidence of n=5, non random subjects in one town in E. TN? You're suggesting that if they don't, it's a HUGE problem, because n=5 ====> the entire "academy" so n=5 republicans ====> entire GOP!

Of course that's idiotic and no one not a moron would give my "research" more than a second glance, but you're demanding we treat this YouTube performative art piece as evidence against the entire academic community and the peer review process, which is just as dumb, of course.

 

[Underestimated]

Who are the 'academy' and what evidence do you have that 'they' did not want to question their alleged 'pseudo-reality' etc. You're using anecdotes, n=3 or 5, to condemn something you're calling 'the academy' but that you've not defined, because it involves at least dozens of disciplines and 28,000 peer reviewed publications. In the 'academy' as I understand the term - the broad academic research community - of course that should be treated as obvious nonsense. You're not citing anything more rigorous than a late night talk show doing selectively edited man on the street interviews to prove the ignorance of the public.

You've already identified your first question as redundant and answered it yourself. Well done.
I'm using a reference discussion technique and not trying to publish a journal or academic paper, nor are you my peer review reviewing my work. I'm not about to write a dissertation to "prove" my anecdotes on debatepolitics. You're request is denied and ludicrous. Please read the original written papers if you need more "evidence".

Papers - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Well of course anecdotes get us nowhere.

You meant "Anecdotes get us nowhere." I disagree. It provides a basis of conversation about the subject matter to review and provide introspection into said subject. If you cannot acknowledge that, I'd ask why you are replying?

To carry through the dog park analogy, you're advancing a theory based on dog shit for evidence.

The dog park analogy is referencing the paper " Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" (You can find the paper at the above link.) It was completely made up, yet the "academy" and peer reviewers did not bother to verify or even question the "dog shit evidence" which was provided, yet still claimed it was one of the best papers that peer review group and journal ever reviewed and gave it an award. That shows there are problems not only with the process. Proving my point which you quoted:

The basic purpose was to prove to the academy papers could and would be written and published if a preconceived conclusion aligned with the political or social construct.

And the evidence you're using is akin to me going through my list of known "Republicans" and selecting five of them non-randomly - I'm thinking they're pretty stupid, and can be easily led wherever I want in a series of questions - doing 5 field interviews with self described 'republicans' and then writing a paper concluding that "the Republican Party" is just amazingly stupid and bigoted! Should the entire party react somehow to my research results, with evidence of n=5, non random subjects in one town in E. TN? You're suggesting that if they don't, it's a HUGE problem, because n=5 ====> the entire "academy" so n=5 republicans ====> entire GOP!

I'm not claiming evidence, that is a poor assumption on your part. I agree with you that the evidence was faulty and entirely fictional, (eg. "Dog park") yet the journals accepted and published it. The authors hypothesis was, if they wrote hoax papers and those papers were published it was because of the editors/peer reviewers preconceived notions. It didn't matter how much "dog shit" or stupidity was in them. And that exactly what happened.

Of course that's idiotic and no one not a moron would give my "research" more than a second glance, but you're demanding we treat this YouTube performative art piece as evidence against the entire academic community and the peer review process, which is just as dumb, of course.

I'm not demanding anything. That's quite a pile of hyperbole. I am pointing out that academia has been polluted and much of the humanities publications are what you already said, "dog shit". In fact there's an entire group who calls out these "dog shit" papers on twitter named "New Real Peer Review", which points out a recent paper such as this one:

The “Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations” And Its Role in Maintaining White Supremacy through Mathematics Education

You're attempt at pseudo intellectual academia speak coupled with a quite basic inference of logic was charming.

 

[JasperL]

You've already identified your first question as redundant and answered it yourself. Well done.
I'm using a reference discussion technique and not trying to publish a journal or academic paper, nor are you my peer review reviewing my work. I'm not about to write a dissertation to "prove" my anecdotes on debatepolitics. You're request is denied and ludicrous. Please read the original written papers if you need more "evidence".

I don't need to read anything to know that the papers being accepted prove nothing about "the academy." "The academy" is incredibly diverse, crosses across thousands of universities and 10s of thousands of publications, dozens of countries, etc. and the Joe Rogan bit covered a tiny part of that whole. Making claims about the whole from that effort is obvious nonsense.

You meant "Anecdotes get us nowhere." I disagree. It provides a basis of conversation about the subject matter to review and provide introspection into said subject. If you cannot acknowledge that, I'd ask why you are replying?

I'm not aware one must agree with a stupid premise to discuss it. It's a debate forum.

The dog park analogy is referencing the paper " Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon" (You can find the paper at the above link.) It was completely made up, yet the "academy" and peer reviewers did not bother to verify or even question the "dog shit evidence" which was provided, yet still claimed it was one of the best papers that peer review group and journal ever reviewed and gave it an award. That shows there are problems not only with the process. Proving my point which you quoted:

No, the "academy" didn't do a damn thing. One or two or three reviewers for one publication out of 10s of thousands did something. Any conclusion from that paper being accepted is limited to those few reviewers, the editor and that publication.

I'm not claiming evidence, that is a poor assumption on your part. I agree with you that the evidence was faulty and entirely fictional, (eg. "Dog park") yet the journals accepted and published it. The authors hypothesis was, if they wrote hoax papers and those papers were published it was because of the editors/peer reviewers preconceived notions. It didn't matter how much "dog shit" or stupidity was in them. And that exactly what happened.

You're condemning all of academia with this crap effort - that's the evidence you've presented for incredibly broad conclusions. I agree it's not evidence, but you're using it as evidence and cannot defend it on those terms, because it's moronic to describe some anecdotes and condemn all of academia.

I'm not demanding anything. That's quite a pile of hyperbole. I am pointing out that academia has been polluted and much of the humanities publications are what you already said, "dog shit". In fact there's an entire group who calls out these "dog shit" papers on twitter named "New Real Peer Review", which points out a recent paper such as this one:

It's quite stupid to conclude "academia" has been polluted by the effort you describe in the OP. It's equally as dumb as me making broad claims about 'the right' or 'the GOP' from an interview of 5 Republicans I select in a non-random sample, no doubt to pick the dumbest 5 possible, so I can advance my agenda of proving the GOP is a garbage party. I'm sure I could succeed in that effort if my burden is no higher than the OP and the conclusions you're drawing from it.

The “Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations” And Its Role in Maintaining White Supremacy through Mathematics Education

You're attempt at pseudo intellectual academia speak coupled with a quite basic inference of logic was charming.

That's a sad effort. If you'd like to defend yourself and the conclusions you're making from anecdotes, you'll have to do better than weak insults.

And I'm not sure what the link is supposed to show. Best I can tell it's not a peer reviewed article.

 

[Underestimated]

I don't need to read anything to know...

And that's where I'll stop discussing anything further with you. I have no tribe to fight for and I'm always open to new views and discussions. When you start off a reply with "I don't need to read anything to know", I realize that any attempt to open your mind or viewpoint or countering your echo chamber and bias is a waste of my time.

I'm not aware one must agree with a stupid premise to discuss it. It's a debate forum.

Your point was "anecdotes", now you change it to "stupid premise". Why not be honest?


Have fun in your echo chamber, I'll step out now.

 

[JasperL]

And that's where I'll stop discussing anything further with you. I have no tribe to fight for and I'm always open to new views and discussions. When you start off a reply with "I don't need to read anything to know", I realize that any attempt to open your mind or viewpoint or countering your echo chamber and bias is a waste of my time.

I'll include the full quote, because you've snipped it in a way that's intellectually dishonest.

"I don't need to read anything to know that the papers being accepted prove nothing about "the academy." "The academy" is incredibly diverse, crosses across thousands of universities and 10s of thousands of publications, dozens of countries, etc. and the Joe Rogan bit covered a tiny part of that whole. Making claims about the whole from that effort is obvious nonsense.'

You simply cannot make ANY conclusions about dozens of fields, thousands of universities, 10s of thousands of publications (i.e. 'the academy'), with a tiny, non-random sample. All you can conclude from that sample is limited to that sample. It's that simple. You must know this which is why you snipped it and ignored that part of my reply.

Your point was "anecdotes", now you change it to "stupid premise". Why not be honest?

The premise is that a non-random sample of n=5 or whatever, i.e. anecdotes, proves anything about 'the academy' or the peer review process. It's nonsense.

As I said on the front end, I'm close to this process and have a lot of problems with it. I have a lot of problems with the academic model at 'research' institutions. As I see the function of a public university, it's main priority should be teaching but the college rankings that consume administrators and deans and those people focus almost entirely on research, publications, and so researchers who teach rarely if at all get rewarded with huge salaries, but the best teachers, who we as students remember, often fail to make tenure. So if you wanted to have an honest discussion, there is lots we might agree on about the failures of 'the academy.'

What's intellectual garbage, however, is using a few anecdotes to condemn all of 'academia' and peer review. Again, I've been through it and for almost every paper, the reviewers did a nice job pointing out holes, weaknesses in the model or econometrics, conflicting explanations etc. and the process is helpful to everyone. It's not perfect - as I said - but the problem is identifying a better alternative. But you don't want to discuss it honestly. So be it.

And to put it bluntly, what Rogan and you are doing is the equivalent of this:

"I have a Republican friend. He's a moron, a truly stupid person, and a bigot. Here are some quotes from him to prove it. Therefore, the Republican party is full of morons and bigots! Q.E.D.!"

I know you'd reject that as a premise, so why do you think the Rogan bit is more persuasive? All they did was expand the n to 5 or 7 or whatever.

 

[Ikari]

Let's see them publish a physics or math paper.

 

[Visbek]

During the lockdown I discovered Joe Rogan's podcast.

Here we go

Basically these two characters decided to submit peer reviewed papers on absurd topics with clearly insane conclusions....

Yawn

Yeah, this happened back in 2018. Many of the hoax papers were rejected. They often repeatedly submitted the same papers, at progressively worse journals, until someone bit. Several journals requested proof of identity, which the hoaxers could not provide when they used a fake identity. They were also discovered long before they intended to reveal the hoax.

So yes, the few journals that ran some of these papers should be embarrassed. There is no question that many journals are lax, or more about profits than academics, or exist to bolster a prof's CV. But it is not justified to proclaim, on that basis, that "all of academia is a hoax."

 

[Underestimated]

Let's see them publish a physics or math paper.

That probably won't happen. The humanities is where the issues are. Hard sciences and mathematics have very little if any politics associated with them, though that doesn't stop humanities papers from attacking the hard sciences as "racist". Example, 2+2=5.

 

[P_T]

There’s a chance the black hole at the center of our galaxy is actually a wormhole (msn.com)

The Joke is if the Black hole at the Center of the Milky Way was a Worm hole to another Galaxy where are the proofs. And if true you jump in and you jump out in the center of another Galaxy. Seems a Redundant Anal thought. If these threads actually existed the Universe would be caught in a death spiral of Connection instead of momentum of constant expansion. Yeo the stupidity of Science Fiction is great entertainment but the physics has a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

 

[ashurbanipal]

During the lockdown I discovered Joe Rogan's podcast. I remember him from Newsradio back in the 90's and of course "Fear Factor". I perused his non-MMA and comedian catalog and found quite a few really interesting interviews. This is one of them. I've always been a bit of a cynic about peer reviewed journals touting academic papers. I understand how these papers are a needed vice in collegiate professor tenure as well as gaining grant money for specific disciplines. But no other podcast have I chuckled as much (maybe Bobcat Goldthwait was a close second). Basically these two characters decided to submit peer reviewed papers on absurd topics with clearly insane conclusions, and amazingly seven were published and one got an award ( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" ) They also pulled out parts of Mien Kampf and replaced words to correlate with intersectional feminism, also peer reviewed and published. I applaud them for making a mockery of academic journals, as these peer reviewed papers are generally worthless gibberish meant to stroke other academic's ego's for their career progress. That legitimate published journals rival the hoaxes and even surpass them demolishes any legitimacy these peer reviewed papers had.

Other peer reviewed and published papers by the hoaxters:
"Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding"
"Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"
"An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant"

Here's the 26 minute interview with Rogan





Here's the background video about the three and why they did it

I have to second everything Visbek said. The journals in which these papers were published aren't exactly top-of-the-heap. Beyond that, however, while the titles of these papers are apparently humorous out of context, the conclusions they claim are all consistent with views and theories that have already been proven. So I'm not sure what the criticism really is, here.

Someone mentioned math/science. By way of analogy, I could write a hoax paper titled something like "Light Rays Captured by Uranus: A Novel Proof of Minkowski's Metric Where the Sun Doesn't Shine," and as long as its described experimental structure seemed plausible and the conclusions were consistent with General Relativity, it'd stand a good chance of being published, despite the tongue-in-cheek (no pun intended) title. But I'm not sure that would somehow impugn the peer-review process. The conclusions are not outlandish--they reinforce what has already been accepted. The peer reviewers can't delve into my mind telepathically to discover that I didn't actually carry out any experiments. So it's hard to figure out what the criticism of the process could be.

Returning to these hoax papers, I suppose the point could be that all or most of the many thousands of papers submitted in the fields of gender studies or critical race theory are hoaxes. But it'd take a lot more than a Joe Rogan video to lend any credence to that assertion.

 

[Phys251]

During the lockdown I discovered Joe Rogan's podcast. I remember him from Newsradio back in the 90's and of course "Fear Factor". I perused his non-MMA and comedian catalog and found quite a few really interesting interviews. This is one of them. I've always been a bit of a cynic about peer reviewed journals touting academic papers. I understand how these papers are a needed vice in collegiate professor tenure as well as gaining grant money for specific disciplines. But no other podcast have I chuckled as much (maybe Bobcat Goldthwait was a close second). Basically these two characters decided to submit peer reviewed papers on absurd topics with clearly insane conclusions, and amazingly seven were published and one got an award ( "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon" ) They also pulled out parts of Mien Kampf and replaced words to correlate with intersectional feminism, also peer reviewed and published. I applaud them for making a mockery of academic journals, as these peer reviewed papers are generally worthless gibberish meant to stroke other academic's ego's for their career progress. That legitimate published journals rival the hoaxes and even surpass them demolishes any legitimacy these peer reviewed papers had.

Other peer reviewed and published papers by the hoaxters:
"Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding"
"Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"
"An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant"

Here's the 26 minute interview with Rogan

Oh look, an attack on academia from the peanut gallery. How very fascist of you.

 

[Phys251]

There’s a chance the black hole at the center of our galaxy is actually a wormhole (msn.com)

The Joke is if the Black hole at the Center of the Milky Way was a Worm hole to another Galaxy where are the proofs. And if true you jump in and you jump out in the center of another Galaxy. Seems a Redundant Anal thought. If these threads actually existed the Universe would be caught in a death spiral of Connection instead of momentum of constant expansion. Yeo the stupidity of Science Fiction is great entertainment but the physics has a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

I loved the movie Interstellar, but there were too many moments that made me think, "There is no way anyone would survive that."

 

[Underestimated]

Oh look, an attack on academia from the peanut gallery. How very fascist of you.

Another aggression without reason from you. What a surprise.

 

[Underestimated]

I have to second everything Visbek said. The journals in which these papers were published aren't exactly top-of-the-heap. Beyond that, however, while the titles of these papers are apparently humorous out of context, the conclusions they claim are all consistent with views and theories that have already been proven. So I'm not sure what the criticism really is, here.

Did you miss the purpose of the papers or do I need to explain it?

Someone mentioned math/science. By way of analogy, I could write a hoax paper titled something like "Light Rays Captured by Uranus: A Novel Proof of Minkowski's Metric Where the Sun Doesn't Shine," and as long as its described experimental structure seemed plausible and the conclusions were consistent with General Relativity, it'd stand a good chance of being published, despite the tongue-in-cheek (no pun intended) title.

Ok so do it. Have you ever written a math/science paper that's on the level of say Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics.

But I'm not sure that would somehow impugn the peer-review process. The conclusions are not outlandish--they reinforce what has already been accepted.

Could you point out a legitimate publication that reinforces "Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"? Or is it accepted that feminism is actually re-written Mein Kampf? If you could reply with some links I'd like to read those.

Returning to these hoax papers, I suppose the point could be that all or most of the many thousands of papers submitted in the fields of gender studies or critical race theory are hoaxes. But it'd take a lot more than a Joe Rogan video to lend any credence to that assertion.

The point is the utter lack of standards in the academic humanities. As the hoaxers replicated on a larger level the Sokal hoax from decades earlier which also was nonsense. It points out the same thing, as they themselves wrote: "The problem is epistemological, political, and ethical and it's profoundly corrupting scholarship in the social sciences and humanities."

 

[Underestimated]

I'll include the full quote, because you've snipped it in a way that's intellectually dishonest.

"I don't need to read anything to know that the papers being accepted prove nothing about "the academy." "The academy" is incredibly diverse, crosses across thousands of universities and 10s of thousands of publications, dozens of countries, etc. and the Joe Rogan bit covered a tiny part of that whole. Making claims about the whole from that effort is obvious nonsense.'

You simply cannot make ANY conclusions about dozens of fields, thousands of universities, 10s of thousands of publications (i.e. 'the academy'), with a tiny, non-random sample. All you can conclude from that sample is limited to that sample. It's that simple. You must know this which is why you snipped it and ignored that part of my reply.

It says something about social sciences and humanities, not dozens of fields.

If you cannot firstly see the humor in this while also being concerned that academics are so eager to publish what they believe, or their politics versus legitimate study, I feel sorry for you. The conclusion is there's a problem. A dismissal of that conclusion by saying as you said, this proves "nothing", is more concerning that the rot may be too deep where even ridicule and humiliation cannot remove it.

 

[JasperL]

It says something about social sciences and humanities, not dozens of fields.

If you cannot firstly see the humor in this while also being concerned that academics are so eager to publish what they believe, or their politics versus legitimate study, I feel sorry for you. The conclusion is there's a problem. A dismissal of that conclusion by saying as you said, this proves "nothing", is more concerning that the rot may be too deep where even ridicule and humiliation cannot remove it.

What I said is the exercise proves "nothing about 'the academy.'"

That part you left off in fact matters. A few papers published in a few low tier journals proves in fact nothing about the broader 'academy.'

What's funny is you don't see the irony in what you're doing. You are on the one hand lamenting low standards in 'the academy' while pimping a stupid exercise that if accepted in the 'academy' as evidence of anything beyond those journals would......prove your point!

Let's do it this way. Dr. Drew is a board certified internist and he's on social media, has his own YouTube channel or podcast - not sure. Used to be on MTV I think.

Anyway Dr. Drew confidently and very publicly predicted some really stupid things about COVID back around this time last year - insisted it would be less lethal than the flu. I'll link to the video if you care. So he was really confident and REALLY, horribly wrong. And today he said something really stupid about vaccines and travel. So, I know you won't object when I quote Dr. Drew and make sweeping conclusions about 'The Medical Profession' or at least internal medicine physicians! Dr. Drew, a board certified internist, said some things he "believes" or because of his "politics versus legitimate study" which means I can citing these anecdotes indict the entire medical profession. The obvious "conclusion" is "there's a problem" with "medicine" in this country!!

Right? That's exactly what you're doing, and you insist I agree with. Yes, it is stupid.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Did you miss the purpose of the papers or do I need to explain it?

No, I understand the purpose of the papers just fine (if by "purpose" you mean the reason for which they were written). I don't think you understand my point, however, which is that when you look at what these guys did a little more closely, the apparent force of the criticism is either greatly reduced, or evaporates altogether.

Ok so do it. Have you ever written a math/science paper that's on the level of say Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics.

1. No, I'm not going to write a paper under false pretenses and submit it to an academic journal. That'd be grounds for me to be fired (one of the few reasons they can get rid of profs with tenure is that kind of blatant misrepresentation).

2. In answer to your question, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "on the level of" and also "math/science paper." I've published a few papers in the foundations of logic.

Could you point out a legitimate publication that reinforces "Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria, Transhysteria, and Transphobia Through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use"?

1. I'm not sure why I should have to, since you're apparently straw-manning me. I didn't say that other publications reinforced these publications. I said that these publications reinforced claims that are already proven.

2. But sure, I can--the authors themselves cite quite a few in the bibliography to the paper itself. A cursory check reveals that the first few are all actual papers by legit sources.

Or is it accepted that feminism is actually re-written Mein Kampf? If you could reply with some links I'd like to read those.

Again, not sure why I should have to--the two authors actually point out that their papers using Mein Kampf were rejected.

Furthermore, they describe two levels of "rewriting" Mein Kampf. The first time, they just tried replacing instances of "Jew" with "White Male"--and that paper was rejected, though they don't say why. The second time, they give a more vague description of what they did, but indicate that the re-writing was more radical. Once you do that, you change the meaning of something entirely. Without specific examples (which the authors do not provide) it's hard to say what they could have done. But in any case, that paper was also rejected.

The point is the utter lack of standards in the academic humanities. As the hoaxers replicated on a larger level the Sokal hoax from decades earlier which also was nonsense. It points out the same thing, as they themselves wrote: "The problem is epistemological, political, and ethical and it's profoundly corrupting scholarship in the social sciences and humanities."

Not in evidence. The "nonsense" in question echoed conclusions that are already known not to be nonsense. If the authors had said something that is nonsense and doesn't resemble anything already known to be true and the papers had been published anyway, then there might be an appreciable problem. The Rogan video plays well to people who have already made up their minds about such subjects--without having ever tried to grapple with the broad array of ideas, arguments, and evidence present in the fields that study those subjects. But that doesn't make it a valid criticism.

 

[Mr Person]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

― Issac Asimov

You're attempt at pseudo intellectual academia speak coupled with a quite basic inference of logic was charming.

You listened to an ex-MMA fighter turned maybe occasionally a little funny comedian's podcast, heard about a handful of questionable papers, and are trying to use that to attack academia and the entire peer review process in every journal of every type.

I don't think you have standing to talk about anyone else's "attempt at pseudo intellectual academia speak."


____________
PS: Drop the "pseudo" and use "academic" instead.

 

[Underestimated]

What I said is the exercise proves "nothing about 'the academy.'"

Perhaps to those who don't know the academy or who pretend they know, or those in denial, you're correct.

That part you left off in fact matters. A few papers published in a few low tier journals proves in fact nothing about the broader 'academy.'

Snobbery about the journal's level doesn't diminish the purpose and point, which is all that matters.

What's funny is you don't see the irony in what you're doing. You are on the one hand lamenting low standards in 'the academy' while pimping a stupid exercise that if accepted in the 'academy' as evidence of anything beyond those journals would......prove your point!

The stupid exercise that made the academy look stupid. You're right that is ironic.

 

[Underestimated]

No, I understand the purpose of the papers just fine (if by "purpose" you mean the reason for which they were written). I don't think you understand my point, however, which is that when you look at what these guys did a little more closely, the apparent force of the criticism is either greatly reduced, or evaporates altogether.

The hope was the hoax would get the academy to be introspective about what they publish, but you're right, that didn't happen.

1. No, I'm not going to write a paper under false pretenses and submit it to an academic journal. That'd be grounds for me to be fired (one of the few reasons they can get rid of profs with tenure is that kind of blatant misrepresentation).

If you are aware of the Sokal paper, he was not fired to my knowledge, and neither has Peter Boghossian. I'm sure it would depend on the institution.

2. In answer to your question, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "on the level of" and also "math/science paper." I've published a few papers in the foundations of logic.

I provided you with a link as an example of both, which defines what I meant.

1. I'm not sure why I should have to, since you're apparently straw-manning me.

You stated: " The conclusions are not outlandish--they reinforce what has already been accepted. " I can only understand how this references the hoax papers, and not the fictional paper you could write but have not called " "Light Rays Captured by Uranus: A Novel Proof of Minkowski's Metric Where the Sun Doesn't Shine." If I mistook the reference, then discard my comment.

2. But sure, I can--the authors themselves cite quite a few in the bibliography to the paper itself. A cursory check reveals that the first few are all actual papers by legit sources.

You'll need to be more specific as there are 20 papers.

Again, not sure why I should have to--the two authors actually point out that their papers using Mein Kampf were rejected.

Incorrect. The paper was accepted but not yet published as the journal Affilia is a quarterly.

Furthermore, they describe two levels of "rewriting" Mein Kampf. The first time, they just tried replacing instances of "Jew" with "White Male"--and that paper was rejected, though they don't say why. The second time, they give a more vague description of what they did, but indicate that the re-writing was more radical. Once you do that, you change the meaning of something entirely. Without specific examples (which the authors do not provide) it's hard to say what they could have done. But in any case, that paper was also rejected.

See above comment.

Not in evidence. The "nonsense" in question echoed conclusions that are already known not to be nonsense.

You have not provided any evidence that any of the conclusions by the hoax papers were legitimate. When I requested you provide some of these conclusions "that are already known not to be nonsense" you failed to provide them and claimed it a strawman. The answer from 2019 is the same as the answer Sokal provided in 1996. I understand, no one likes to be made to look foolish. The way to not look foolish is to not BE foolish.