Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 168 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 652 Goods vs 310 No Goods

1. Economist
   d2c5
   

   We'll soon realize that in the coming years the real issue with Econ will be something else. With the glut of diversity officers supervising our moves, the diversity statements etc. we're not too far from the fate of other social sciences where academic studies are berated on twitter for not being inclusive enough, and cowering authors who bow to the online mob all too soon.

   We need some pushback against the linguistic control exerted by some departments either through requiring additional statements, or by having extra admin oversee what we do. I agree with the issues here, but there are other issues like the one above we should be seriously talking about as well, imho.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 3 Vlad !

2. Economist
   c769
   

   We'll soon realize that in the coming years the real issue with Econ will be something else. With the glut of diversity officers supervising our moves, the diversity statements etc. we're not too far from the fate of other social sciences where academic studies are berated on twitter for not being inclusive enough, and cowering authors who bow to the online mob all too soon.
   We need some pushback against the linguistic control exerted by some departments either through requiring additional statements, or by having extra admin oversee what we do. I agree with the issues here, but there are other issues like the one above we should be seriously talking about as well, imho.

   0/10 gb2 plebbidiot

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   dbd3
   

   Bump bump

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   79fc
   

   Gelman seems pathologically verbose...

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   31f0
   

   We'll soon realize that in the coming years the real issue with Econ will be something else. With the glut of diversity officers supervising our moves, the diversity statements etc. we're not too far from the fate of other social sciences where academic studies are berated on twitter for not being inclusive enough, and cowering authors who bow to the online mob all too soon.
   We need some pushback against the linguistic control exerted by some departments either through requiring additional statements, or by having extra admin oversee what we do. I agree with the issues here, but there are other issues like the one above we should be seriously talking about as well, imho.

   0/10 gb2 plebbidiot

   This sort of response is revealing because it shows that the objections to real concerns is not that they are false but they are simply low status.

   We'll soon realize that in the coming years the real issue with Econ will be something else. With the glut of diversity officers supervising our moves, the diversity statements etc. we're not too far from the fate of other social sciences where academic studies are berated on twitter for not being inclusive enough, and cowering authors who bow to the online mob all too soon.
   We need some pushback against the linguistic control exerted by some departments either through requiring additional statements, or by having extra admin oversee what we do. I agree with the issues here, but there are other issues like the one above we should be seriously talking about as well, imho.

   0/10 gb2 plebbidiot

   Yes, yes, it's a low status opinion but it's also true.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   dbd3
   

   ?

   Gelman seems pathologically verbose...

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   6b59
   

   ^^ I know right? The ''you are low status'' or ''you are jealous'' is likely the most worthless argument one could possibly think of. Do people actually believe that whether a particular argument is right or wrong depends on whether the person expressing the argument is jealous or has low status or not? Research fraud is research fraud regardless of whether a homeless crackhead says it is research fraud.

   Amazingly, the most common defence of fraudsters, p-hackers and other anti-scientific behaviour in academia, from users on this forum is that the critics are low status or have this or that motive. Do users here actually use their brains? Andrew Gelman would be equally correct in his criticism of modern social science research also if he actually turned out to be Joseph Mengele and was eating children. If I produce flawed and useless research, my research doesn't suddenly become acceptable and valuable every time a low status economist calls my research flawed.

   Do users on this forum not understand this?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   a006
   

   Amazingly, the most common defence of fraudsters, p-hackers and other anti-scientific behaviour in academia, from users on this forum is that the critics are low status or have this or that motive.
   Do users on this forum not understand this?

   That's not amazing at all. The fraudsters cannot respond with substance, so they (and their coauthors) resort to ad hominem.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply

Post

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.