First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Professors Pull Off Clever Hoax With ‘Penis Paper’, Expose Liberal Academia as a Sham
22866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/25/17
This is why I don't trust peer reviewed articles. The peer review process is worse than a Wikipedia review process.It seems to get worse every few years

The respected professors submitted an absurd article — which blamed penises for global warming — to a respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal — which gullibly printed it.



https://heatst.com/culture-wars/professors-pull-off-clever-hoax-with-penis-paper-expose-liberal-academia-as-a-sham/

Philosopher Peter Boghossian and mathematician James Lindsay perpetrated a hoax intended to expose gender studies as a sham, and they succeeded. The respected professors submitted an absurd article — which blamed penises for global warming — to a respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal — which gullibly printed it. In perpetrating their hoax, the professors said they sought to expose academia as shallow, credulous and painfully politically correct.

Their clever hoax echoes what’s become known as the Sokal Affair, in which physics professor Alain Sokal infamously debunked postmodernism to be intellectual fraud. Two decades ago, Sokal submitted an article peppered with nonsense that flattered the ideological predispositions of the editors of Social Text, an academic journal dedicated to postmodernist thought. He proposed that quantum gravity is a “social and linguistic construct,” and it was published without academic peer review, betraying the field’s lack of intellectual rigor.

Writing under pseudonyms, authors Boghossian (Associate Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University) and Lindsay repeated the effort with an academic article on “the conceptual penis,” which theorizes, among other things, that manspreading is akin to a man “raping the empty space around him.”

In the article “The conceptual penis as a social construct” (archived link) published in Cogent Social Sciences, the authors present male genitalia as a harmful social meme that engenders toxic expressions of masculinity.



The gender studies publication describes itself as “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies,” so you know it’s the real deal.

The authors even slipped in hilarious descriptions of the penis:


Still, even as a social construct, the conceptual penis is hopelessly dominated by recalcitrant social constructions that favor hypermasculine interpretations of the penis as a notion unjustly associated with high male value (Schwalbe & Wolkomir, 2001). Many cisgendered hypermasculine males, for instance, seem to identify those aspects of their masculinity upon which they most obviously depend with the notion that they carry their penis as a symbol of male power, domination, control, capability, desirability, and aggression (The National Coalition for Men “compile[d] a list of synonyms for the word penis [sic],” these include the terms “beaver basher,” “cranny axe,” “custard launcher,” “dagger,” “heat-seeking moisture missile,” “mayo shooting hotdog gun,” “pork sword,” and “yogurt shotgun” [2011]). Based upon an appreciable corpus of feminist literature on the penis, this troubling identification results in an effective isomorphism linking the conceptual penis with toxic hypermasculinity.


The paper states that the penis as a form of “’hegemonic masculinity and cultural construction,’ presented in the ‘essence of the hard-on’,” and even argues that man-made climate change is happening because of “patriarchal power dynamics,” brought on by the conceptual penis. No surprise there.

Boghossian and Lindsay revealed their hoax in a paper at Skeptic Magazine. They explain:


“This already damning characterization of our hoax understates our paper’s lack of fitness for academic publication by orders of magnitude. We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.”



Just as Sokal laid bare the academic navel-gazing associated with postmodernist studies, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay exposed the progressive left’s adherence to moral orthodoxy—a poor substitute to intellectual rigor.

“We sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship,” they wrote. “Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.”



This guy should get a medal for this level of trolling.
13780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17
the peer review process is flawed. the system can recommend people who are very close to the researcher (sometimes even their phd students), and some researchers peer-reviewed their own paper (by using different names, fooling the algorithm)
https://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400

this (the news in the op) doesn't necessarily mean that the liberal academia is a "sham", only that the peer-review process is broken.
maybe the researcher did the peer-review himself, or a close friend did.
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17
Another day another thread where Rujikin misrepresents simple information to fit his agenda.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17
I looked up this journal to see if it was actually a respected publication and it wasn't even in the database (might be too new): http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

The only thing that this demonstrates is that "peer-review" is not an end all be all of scientific integrity. In any field, it isn't really hard to get your work peer-reviewed. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of junk journals that will publish virtually anything. This does not mean that all peer-review is garbage or that all of the social sciences are garbage - there are plenty of journals which have a very rigorous process and plenty of articles from the social sciences which make it through that process - just, people should maintain a healthy degree of skepticism when it comes to science. Not so much that you become willfully ignorant, but not so little that you become gullible.

EDIT: Oh, and it is very worth noting that this paper was rejected by a more reputable source before getting published by the dumpster that seems to be Cogent.
15841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/24/17
NORMA isn't even ranked and sent them to Cogent, apparently, so 'more reputable' is somewhat of a stretch.
24759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17
It did not expose Liberal Academia as a sham in a way that everything was proved to be invalid, but the process of submission, and possibly that of Gender Studies, which are just one branch of a social science which seems to be more literature theorizing applied to possible real life phenomenon. I am sure, I never taken one.

That being said, Cogent Science Journal does not appear to be all that linked to Gender Studies, and as a pay to publish peer review Journal, is made even more palatable that it would get published when no one is all that knowledgeable (Social Sciences is more than Gender Studies), especially since it was denied from another magazine that did specialize in Masculinity Studies, whose parent company directed them to Cogent through automated email.

I am not entirely sure it disproves the entire academic field of social sciences, depending on what you mean by "liberal academia", but at the very least the problem of Pay to publish articles, which have also had several hoaxes similar to this, but none of those explicitly meant those fields were invalid or biased, just that money talks.

Not every journal does this.
mxdan 
11671 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17
The peer reviewed process is one of the best means out of all the methods of truth we have. Just because you guys distrust colleges for 'liberalism' in its continued support of the sciences does not make the process flawed. What you have is a specific outlier in a field that is spotty to begin with, not a common trend.

Something peer reviewed journals are alarmingly cognizant of most of the time.

I mean what is it that your arguing? That that the peer review process is all a hoax? That thousands of scientists across the globe are that petty that they spend all their time and effort not researching a thing? Have you ever even been a part of a peer review process? What makes you an expert on this matter? Why should people believe your narrative over the more believable one?

This petty anti-science agenda you guys are developing is really quite insane. Especially while you sit and utilize things that the process helped create in the first place but is taken for granted.
9509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 5/24/17
Pretty hilarious tbh.
48560 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

mxdan wrote:

The peer reviewed process is one of the best means out of all the methods of truth we have. Just because you guys distrust colleges for 'liberalism' in its continued support of the sciences does not make the process flawed. What you have is a specific outlier in a field that is spotty to begin with, not common trend.

Something peer reviewed journals are alarmingly cognizant of most of the time.

I mean what is it that your arguing? That that the peer review process is all a hoax? That thousands of scientists across the globe are that petty that they spend all their time and effort not researching a thing? Have you ever even been a part of a peer review process? What makes you an expert on this matter? Why should people believe your narrative over the more believable one?

This petty anti-science agenda you guys are developing is really quite insane. Especially while you sit and utilize things that the process helped create in the first place but is taken for granted.


He just doesn't like colleges, once had a conversation with him on how every male in college is a cuck because the women in college have the freedom to sleep with whom they want.
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

rawratl wrote:


mxdan wrote:

The peer reviewed process is one of the best means out of all the methods of truth we have. Just because you guys distrust colleges for 'liberalism' in its continued support of the sciences does not make the process flawed. What you have is a specific outlier in a field that is spotty to begin with, not common trend.

Something peer reviewed journals are alarmingly cognizant of most of the time.

I mean what is it that your arguing? That that the peer review process is all a hoax? That thousands of scientists across the globe are that petty that they spend all their time and effort not researching a thing? Have you ever even been a part of a peer review process? What makes you an expert on this matter? Why should people believe your narrative over the more believable one?

This petty anti-science agenda you guys are developing is really quite insane. Especially while you sit and utilize things that the process helped create in the first place but is taken for granted.


He just doesn't like colleges, once had a conversation with him on how every male in college is a cuck because the women in college have the freedom to sleep with whom they want.


That can't actually have been something that was said.


I hope.
48560 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:


rawratl wrote:


mxdan wrote:

The peer reviewed process is one of the best means out of all the methods of truth we have. Just because you guys distrust colleges for 'liberalism' in its continued support of the sciences does not make the process flawed. What you have is a specific outlier in a field that is spotty to begin with, not common trend.

Something peer reviewed journals are alarmingly cognizant of most of the time.

I mean what is it that your arguing? That that the peer review process is all a hoax? That thousands of scientists across the globe are that petty that they spend all their time and effort not researching a thing? Have you ever even been a part of a peer review process? What makes you an expert on this matter? Why should people believe your narrative over the more believable one?

This petty anti-science agenda you guys are developing is really quite insane. Especially while you sit and utilize things that the process helped create in the first place but is taken for granted.


He just doesn't like colleges, once had a conversation with him on how every male in college is a cuck because the women in college have the freedom to sleep with whom they want.


That can't actually have been something that was said.


I hope.


Actually makes it seem more tame the way I phrased it. Actual comment was something along the lines of "liberal college sluts sleep with everyone and cheat, so all the liberal guys chasing them are literal cucks."
Banned
22807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 5/24/17
Heat Street should have known just some right wing bullshit site not even going to bother
mxdan 
11671 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

rawratl wrote:


mxdan wrote:

The peer reviewed process is one of the best means out of all the methods of truth we have. Just because you guys distrust colleges for 'liberalism' in its continued support of the sciences does not make the process flawed. What you have is a specific outlier in a field that is spotty to begin with, not common trend.

Something peer reviewed journals are alarmingly cognizant of most of the time.

I mean what is it that your arguing? That that the peer review process is all a hoax? That thousands of scientists across the globe are that petty that they spend all their time and effort not researching a thing? Have you ever even been a part of a peer review process? What makes you an expert on this matter? Why should people believe your narrative over the more believable one?

This petty anti-science agenda you guys are developing is really quite insane. Especially while you sit and utilize things that the process helped create in the first place but is taken for granted.


He just doesn't like colleges, once had a conversation with him on how every male in college is a cuck because the women in college have the freedom to sleep with whom they want.


Lol! Have you met an undergrad in general who isn't trying to sleep with whomever and whatever they want?
48560 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

mxdan wrote:

Lol! Have you met an undergrad in general who isn't trying to sleep with whomever and whatever they want?


Only the dirty libuhrals.
qwueri 
22866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17

So where do we go from here? There is a way out: The authors could acknowledge that their hoax implies absolutely nothing about gender studies. It merely demonstrates that pay-to-publish journals will accept low-quality articles — a point that, as previously implied, is boringly unoriginal. Changing their views in response to facts like those mentioned above would be the ultimate confirmation of the values of skepticism, reason and epistemic humility.

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/22/why-the-conceptual-penis-hoax-was-a-bust-it-only-reveals-the-lack-of-skepticism-among-skeptics/

So they basically did a hit piece based on a low quality scientific journal. Cool.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.