Re-edition of the Sokal affair proves once again that social sciences have become a joke in the US

[Timsup2nothin]

the issue is that criticizing these papers for it supposedly furthers some right-wing cause - despite the authors of the "hoax" all coming from the left themselves, and this affair being serious enough to get the attention of the NYT and other mainstream papers that can hardly be called right-wing (I learned about it in a pretty left-wing paper...)

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. You come with an OP that includes a link to the New York Times, but is a story that has been thoroughly blasted through the right wing echo chamber, use the same rhetoric that the right wing echo chamber has used to expound on it to further to fit it into your already long since established devotion to the right wing cause...then get upset when your usual well established biases are pointed out.

Not that any of that has anything to do with the sidebar discussion of the difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences. Fortunately you just displayed total ignorance of that topic twice and seemingly abandoned it to me and Uppi, who I hope is willing to explore it further.

 

[schlaufuchs]

My understanding of this story:

1) With the exception of an article making it into Sexuality and Culture, none of the articles which managed publication did so in legitimate, reputable publications. With the exception of the one publication, all the illegitimate articles which were submitted to legitimate publications were summarily rejected. Junk articles being accepted for publication in junk journals is not particularly surprising.

2) The dramatic expansion of the academic apparatus has put serious strain on the methodology traditionally employed by the academic system. Universities are accepting more and more PhD students who in turn are asked to put out more and more original research, which in turn creates more postdoctoral fellows needing to publish substantial, dramatic research to interview competitively for the tiny handful of tenure-track positions that exist. More research of is being put out without the same level of scrutiny that would have been given it in the past. Compounded with this, the demands placed on professors has expanded. Professors are expected to teach classes, attend conferences, sit on committees, conduct and publish research, and stay on top of research in their field. Talk to history academics - the glut of research coming out year-over-year makes it harder and harder for any one academic to have a total grasp of the historiography even of their tiny niche field. There simply aren't enough hours in the day to read everything and perform all the other duties expected of them. Any cursory read through recent academic book reviews can show that it's fairly common for an academic to not read much more of a work than its abstract, introduction and conclusion.

3) There is nothing wrong with the current state of crit theory disciplines per se. The takeaway of this story - at least luiz's takeaway: that modern social sciences are garbage and have lost the plot, is, or at least shouldn't, really be the story here. Again, getting junk research published in junk journals is not really news. The real story here is that these junk journals exist at all.

 

[luiz]

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. You come with an OP that includes a link to the New York Times, but is a story that has been thoroughly blasted through the right wing echo chamber, use the same rhetoric that the right wing echo chamber has used to expound on it to further to fit it into your already long since established devotion to the right wing cause...then get upset when your usual well established biases are pointed out.

Not that any of that has anything to do with the sidebar discussion of the difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences. Fortunately you just displayed total ignorance of that topic twice and seemingly abandoned it to me and Uppi, who I hope is willing to explore it further.

Eh, you've demonstrated yet again how real is the issue the "hoax" has exposed, as for you the only thing that matters is your crusade against the "right" in your "culture war", and not the fact peer reviewed journals is the social sciences are so dishonest they'll publish any crap as long as the conclusion agrees with their dogmatic orthodoxy.

As for "hard sciences" vs "soft sciences" there is obviously a distinction, but pursuit of truth and scientific standards should still be the rule in "soft sciences", and not this pathetic joke that is the current state of affairs. I don't want to pursue this discussion any further with you, but it's not a bad topic that should occupy an entire other thread.

 

[luiz]

My understanding of this story:

Naturally I'm going to disagree with your understanding but do appreciate the fact that you actually reflected on the affair instead of mindlessly jumping into the defense of "your side" on the "culture wars" as some other poster here...

1) With the exception of an article making it into Sexuality and Culture, none of the articles which managed publication did so in legitimate, reputable publications. With the exception of the one publication, all the illegitimate articles which were submitted to legitimate publications were summarily rejected. Junk articles being accepted for publication in junk journals is not particularly surprising.

Don't you think that such a clearly nonsensical article, that could be spotted as nonsense by any average high schooler, being published in what you call a "legitimate, reputable publication" is a huge scandal in itself? Shouldn't there be consequences for the people that reviewed this article and gave it the green light?

2) The dramatic expansion of the academic apparatus has put serious strain on the methodology traditionally employed by the academic system. Universities are accepting more and more PhD students who in turn are asked to put out more and more original research, which in turn creates more postdoctoral fellows needing to publish substantial research to interview competitively for the tiny handful of tenure-track positions that exist. More research of is being put out without the same level of scrutiny that would have been given it in the past. Compounded with this, the demands placed on professors has expanded. Professors are expected to teach classes, attend conferences, sit on committees, conduct and publish research, and stay on top of research in their field. Talk to history academics - the glut of research coming out year-over-year makes it harder and harder for any one academic to have a total grasp of all the research coming out. There simply aren't enough hours in the day to read everything and perform all the other duties expected of them. Any cursory read through recent academic book reviews can show that it's fairly common that academics aren't reading much more of a work than its abstract, introduction and conclusion.

The later sentence is quite scandalous too and would indeed place an even bigger question mark on the current state of "crit theory" per se.
As for your other point, note that none of the authors had PhDs on the fileds in which they got their papers published, and yet published they were (despite being nonsense).

3) There is nothing wrong with the current state of crit theory disciplines per se. The takeaway of this story - at least luiz's takeaway: that modern social sciences are garbage and have lost the plot, is, or at least shouldn't, really be the story here. Again, getting junk research published in junk journals is not really news. The real story here is that these junk journals exist at all.

Oh but there is something very wrong with the current state of "crit theory" - there is something very wrong with critical theory itself! It is a pseudo-science, created by charlatans such as Marcuse. But your point about the real story being that so many junk journals exist is also true - but then again, it's always easier to have junk journals in a pseudo-science than in, say, neurology.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

the fact peer reviewed journals is the social sciences are so dishonest they'll publish any crap as long as the conclusion agrees with their dogmatic orthodoxy.

No matter how many times you cite this daft right wing talking point it is not going to become fact. Take it to Breitbarf if you want a pat on the back for it.

 

[luiz]

No matter how many times you cite this daft right wing talking point it is not going to become fact. Take it to Breitbarf if you want a pat on the back for it.

It is a fact that completely nonsensical papers were published in peer-reviewed journals as acknowledged by the journals themselves. That instead of acknowledging it you continue your silly little crusade does not change reality. You can't discard reality just because sometimes it's inconvenient to "your side".

You are just demonstrating the mindset the hoaxers in the OP were trying to expose, again. None of them work for Breitbart of any other right-wing group, BTW. It's possible to criticize the pseudo-science of critical theory without being some Breitbart-reading Trumpist, believe it or not. But you demonstrate once again that this (pretty low) level of complexity is already too much for you. So keep on barking about Breitbart or whatever and ignore the actual subject, I'm sure everyone is fascinated...

 

[HoloDoc]

That's the thing - no you can't write some paper full of nonsense claiming that blacks are genetically inferior and get it published by a peer-reviewed journal - unless the KKK is running peer-reviewed journals. Any such paper will get a lot of scrutiny - as it should. But if your paper is attacking "heteronormativity", even if it's heteronormativity in dog parks and the paper is completely unintelligible, it will get published. Which is the point.


Have you seen the funding of social studies departments in the rest of the world? They're not exactly swimming in money. The US showers more money on the nonsense machine than any other nation on Earth, and the margin is not small.
The rest of your post is neither here nor there.

Yes, you can get such a paper published. I've read them. There is a rather well-known Canadian academic who is not worthy of being named here who routinely writes that exact tripe, and is lionised by the Right for doing so. Such articles are indeed rare. Much like the ones mentioned in the OP.

and your second paragraph proves you haven't the slightest intention of engaging in any sort of honest discussion on the topic. Which I am capable of, seeing as IT IS LITERALLY MY JOB TO PURCHASE SUBSCRIPTIONS TO JOURNALS. But if you have already reached a conclusion and refuse to debate the point e not worth my time.

And the third paragraph just screams; "I can't argue these points! But her e-mails!!!"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is a fact that completely nonsensical papers were published in peer-reviewed journals as acknowledged by the journals themselves.

What is NOT a fact, or even in the realm of fact, is "the social sciences are so dishonest they'll publish any crap as long as the conclusion agrees with their dogmatic orthodoxy," which is nothing but right wing blathering spin. You brought that crap into the discussion, then cry your lying eyes out about how "leftists" are politicizing your totally scientific observations. Your position is totally dishonest, and has been from the OP onwards.

 

[Dachs]

Usually, if academics have a problem with the facts or analysis in somebody else's paper or text, they will write it out.

While academia generally enjoys a collegial atmosphere, academics individually are often willing to be quite savage to pieces or authors that they feel don't measure up. History is, of course, the field with the most glorious examples of this practice; after all, the first thing that the second Western historian of all time said was that the first Western historian of all time was a charlatan and a liar. But it's true of most disciplines, if not all, and journals are generally willing to publish responses to articles or reviews, especially if they contain intellectual rigor.

Another thing about academia is that academics are often far too unwilling to think about the philosophical underpinnings of their work. They prefer to do "research", because it's easier to sell other academics on it, rather than philosophy, which is often derided as navel-gazing. The result of this is that the fundamental basis for a lot of work often goes without enough critical analysis.

Allegedly, Pluckrose et al. were primarily trying to address these two things in their paper. They claimed that they were trying to address what they felt to be a glut of bad papers in a certain field, and they claimed that they believed that the philosophical underpinning of "constructivist [sic]" thought in the so-called "grievance studies" fields was insufficiently rigorous.

Unfortunately, neither of these claims is actually substantiated in the paper. To the first point, if there is a bad paper, the honest, good-faith response to it is to write an article response to the bad paper. Those get published! They get published all the time! Academics have wars in journal articles that can last years! And to the second point, if you think that the philosophy in a field needs a critical eye, the honest, good-faith response to that problem is to write an article discussing the philosophical problems in the field! Those, too, get published! In fact, they're desperately needed!

Instead of either one of those things happening, we got a series of hoaxes preying on reviewers and scholars operating in good faith, primarily making use of weaknesses in the peer-review process that are well understood by the academy. For the most part, I don't feel the need to rehash those in any detail. Owen and HoloDoc have done it well, and God knows I've whined about many of these same aspects of the academy before. I do want to touch on the fact that the authors had to falsify data sets to get anything published by a peer-reviewed journal at all; when they tried to publish an article without a data set, on the "Conceptual Penis", it only made it into a pay-for-publication journal, which says literally nothing bad about peer review or academia in general. Falsified data sets are a severe problem at all levels of academia, and reviewers simply lack the ability to check them comprehensively. In fact, most reviewers would generally make the good-faith assumption that because there was an experimental data set, the article must have passed muster with someone, presumably on a grant committee, and therefore have some conceptual validity. That presumably led reviewers of the Pluckrose et al. papers to be a little more charitable than they otherwise might have been. Again, that's a weakness, not merely an error by the reviewers. Academics know it's a weakness. It's been a topic of discussion in all fields, including economics (Doucouliagos et al. 2017) and STEM (the entire existence of Retraction Watch). I don't know if it's even possible to completely eradicate all problematic papers before publication in every field, from every journal. That seems like an absurdly high bar, even if it's one to strive for.

I also have to say that most of the journalistic and social-media response to this article is comically hyperbolic. The authors never claimed anything about the validity of the entirety of critical theory (although if they did, it would be equally as unsubstantiated as the rest of the content of their article, which included several misleading statements and at least one lie). Frankly, I also lack the background to talk about critical theory. It may very well be indefensible; I really can't say one way or another. But this paper proves nothing about it. It's another hack job, the result of somebody egotistical enough to be convinced that they're right combined with a lack of sufficient intellectual rigor to engage their opponents on a level playing field.

 

[luiz]

Yes, you can get such a paper published. I've read them. There is a rather well-known Canadian academic who is not worthy of being named here who routinely writes that exact tripe, and is lionised by the Right for doing so. Such articles are indeed rare. Much like the ones mentioned in the OP.

and your second paragraph proves you haven't the slightest intention of engaging in any sort of honest discussion on the topic. Which I am capable of, seeing as IT IS LITERALLY MY JOB TO PURCHASE SUBSCRIPTIONS TO JOURNALS. But if you have already reached a conclusion and refuse to debate the point e not worth my time.

And the third paragraph just screams; "I can't argue these points! But her e-mails!!!"

Eh, if you have evidence of a clearly nonsensical paper that was accepted in some peer-reviewed journal just because it supported a right-wing cause, please provide it. Otherwise you're the one arguing in bad faith here.

I'm not very impressed by your job so your appeal to authority is kinda worthless. I've presented evidence of completely bogus papers being accepted by peer-reviewed journals, even supposedly prestigious ones, just because they supported fashionable left-wing conclusions. This is hardly a new or isolated phenomena, as the Sokal affair which I previously mentioned demonstrated. Your reaction has been an unsubstantiated claim that this happens all the time everywhere and has nothing to do with critical theory or fashionable political conclusions - indeed your only substation is an appeal to the authority of your job. So try harder if you want to accuse me of arguing in bad faith, when you haven't really substantiated anything you claim.

What is NOT a fact, or even in the realm of fact, is "the social sciences are so dishonest they'll publish any crap as long as the conclusion agrees with their dogmatic orthodoxy," which is nothing but right wing blathering spin. You brought that crap into the discussion, then cry your lying eyes out about how "leftists" are politicizing your totally scientific observations. Your position is totally dishonest, and has been from the OP onwards.

Well there seems to be a growing pile of evidence that any nonsense will find itself published by the "grievance studies" publications as long as they reach the fashionable conclusions. This is hardly the sole opinion of Breitbart readership as your rather limited worldview seems to think.

Indeed, pointing out that "critical theory" and its offshoots are completely unscientific, masking their vacuousness and contradictions with impenetrable jargon and a solid wall of nonsense, is not new nor made by the first time by Trumpists. Many people on the left, with far better left-wing credentials than you, have made these exact claims. I understand your reaction would be to call them all Breitbart readers, Trump voters, whatever, but that just shows how caged you are in your silly binary worldview.

Usually, if academics have a problem with the facts or analysis in somebody else's paper or text, they will write it out.
Frankly, I also lack the background to talk about critical theory. It may very well be indefensible; I really can't say one way or another.

Thanks for the long reply. I disagree with much of it but appreciate the effort and intellectual honesty, and will reply properly later when I have more time.
I'll take issue with this part though. You don't have to be an expert in critical theory in order to judge whether it's nonsense or not. When a reasonably educated person reads entire passages of Derrida or Habermas and can't for the life of him extract an ounce of sense, there is something wrong with the passage, not the reader.It is freaking obvious that they are hiding their emptiness behind a wall of jargon. In some cases it's very easy to demonstrate that an author is spouting nonsense, such as when Lacan grotesquely misuses mathematical concepts. But in other cases we can't even comprehend what's being said - no one can, including PhD's in the field, because there's nothing to be comprehended.

There's a reason why these sort of hoaxes abound in "critical theory" but not in say neurology, nor even other social sciences such as history. The reason is that it's often impossible to differentiate a hoax from a bona fide article in critical theory. One of the hoax papers even won a prize! I mean, there's something wrong here.

As for why the authors chose a hoax instead of an article criticizing the complete lack of scientific rigor in "grievance studies", as you suggest, we can only speculate, but it seems rather self-evident to me. There are already loads of articles, even entire books, by extremely respected academics of all possible political persuasions exposing critical theory for its many flaws. The material is out there for anyone to see, there's hardly a lack of them. And yet "critical theory" continues to flourish, the number of trash journals dedicated to it continues to rise, and its impact on the media and mainstream discourse is probably at its highest ever. The hoax exposes the fraud and charlatanism to a much wider audience than yet another article would - hell, they made it to the NYT and to Le Monde. The journals in question were forced to do some public soul-searching. The impact was far bigger than if they had written yet another article pointing out facts that have already been pointed out by dozens of scholars - so kudos to them, even if it's certainly a non-academic approach. But it's not like their adversaries are respecting the most elementary academic principles...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I understand your reaction would be to call them all Breitbart readers, Trump voters, whatever, but that just shows how caged you are in your silly binary worldview.

Nope, just you. Your massive right wing bent is so blaringly obvious that there's really no other conversation to be had with you.

 

[uppi]

I'll take issue with this part though. You don't have to be an expert in critical theory in order to judge whether it's nonsense or not. When a reasonably educated person reads entire passages of Derrida or Habermas and can't for the life of him extract an ounce of sense, there is something wrong with the passage, not the reader.It is freaking obvious that they are hiding their emptiness behind a wall of jargon. In some cases it's very easy to demonstrate that an author is spouting nonsense, such as when Lacan grotesquely misuses mathematical concepts. But in other cases we can't even comprehend what's being said - no one can, including PhD's in the field, because there's nothing to be comprehended.

Just because you don't comprehend something doesn't mean nobody can understand it. I could probably pull out dozens of papers that make sense to me, from which you couldn't comprehend anything at all. At the same time there are scientific papers which I assume have meaning, but which are all but gibberish to me.

There's a reason why these sort of hoaxes abound in "critical theory" but not in say neurology, nor even other social sciences such as history. The reason is that it's often impossible to differentiate a hoax from a bona fide article in critical theory. One of the hoax papers even won a prize! I mean, there's something wrong here.

This isn't even remotely true. The biggest academic hoax scandal (including retracted prizes and everything) that I know of was in physics. Have you ever heard about Jan Hendrik Schön? That scandal dwarfs this one.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't you think that such a clearly nonsensical article, that could be spotted as nonsense by any average high schooler, being published in what you call a "legitimate, reputable publication" is a huge scandal in itself? Shouldn't there be consequences for the people that reviewed this article and gave it the green light?

Not really, junk papers will be published in any field from time to time.

 

[brennan]

Modern social sciences frequently publish papers written using methodological assumptions that are directly opposed to the idea that they can be criticised, or that criticism is meaningful at all. Basically, it's an intellectual cesspit.

 

[MaryKB]

I guess I just don't feel it makes much sense to me if you say that because some hoaxers got a handful of their papers published, you can say that whole field is somehow a problem? I mean, how many proper papers got published? I'd think, imagine if you see a dog with only three legs, would you say all dogs are three legged creatures?

I work in fraud, and from my own personal experience I know we have many measures in place to stop illegal transactions happening, but no matter what we do you'll always see bad people out there committing crimes and getting away with it, because you just can't possibly be perfect. But I'd never say because a few criminals sometimes make fraudulent transactions, that means credit cards and bank accounts have weak security, you know what I mean?

I'd feel if you wanted to do a real scientific approach, you'd look at hundreds of published papers, and you'd then check to see how credible those are, like who wrote them, who reviewed them, do you find they have followed scientific standards, and such and such, and then you could sort of make claims on how credible papers in a field are, right? Am I alone in feeling it just seems really odd how you'd take a very unscientific approach to try and prove something's unscientific?

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'm so confused here. Crit theory predates poststructuralism. You know this, right?

Also echoing uppi - Just because you don't understand Habermas, doesn't mean that the entirety of the historical discipline - to whom much of its scholarship from the 1970s on is indebted - doesn't.

 

[Lexicus]

you can say that whole field is somehow a problem?

And keep in mind it's not even a "whole field" being dismissed here, the claim is being made about "social sciences in the US", not any specific field...which is completely ridiculous...there are plenty of social scientists who do not go in for post-structuralism, critical theory, or any of the rest of the intellectual strands that could be considered to fall under the right-wing bogey of "cultural marxism"...

 

[brennan]

I'd feel if you wanted to do a real scientific approach, you'd look at hundreds of published papers, and you'd then check to see how credible those are, like who wrote them, who reviewed them, do you find they have followed scientific standards, and such and such, and then you could sort of make claims on how credible papers in a field are, right? Am I alone in feeling it just seems really odd how you'd take a very unscientific approach to try and prove something's unscientific?

Too often, in the social sciences, you scour papers for quotes to use. You don't check anything.

 

[Synobun]

Too often, in the social sciences, you scour papers for quotes to use. You don't check anything.

You do. It just takes more subjective analysis than a measured science. You can translate some social science to metrics but it's difficult to do so and often leads to traditionalism/conservatism (i.e. static theory).

 

[brennan]

I just spent a year picking up a postgrad qualification in a social science. Almost nothing I read had ever been critiqued by anyone, some of it made assertions directly contradicted by the papers they cited. Some of it contained no actual data of any kind, just some rhetorical posturing (and that was one the head of course told us to read).

I was not impressed.