SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the won't-be-fooled-again,-or-will-they? dept.
Portland State University has initiated disciplinary proceedings against their philosophy professor Peter Boghossian for conspiring with colleagues to submit more than two dozen satirical papers to feminist theory and race-studies journals in an effort to prove those disciplines are academically fraudulent. The hoax papers, some of which were accepted by journals and which were revealed back in October, made Boghossian and his cohorts the international toast of "free thinkers" concerned that college campuses have become paralyzed by political orthodoxy.
After their ruse was revealed, the three authors described their project in an October article in the webzine Areo, which Pluckrose edits. Their goal, they wrote, was to "to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research." They contend that scholarship that tends to social grievances now dominates some fields, where students and others are bullied into adhering to scholars' worldviews, while lax publishing standards allow the publication of clearly ludicrous articles if the topic is politically fashionable.
Sources:
The Chronicle of Higher Education : Proceedings Start Against 'Sokal Squared' Hoax Professor (archive)
Willamette Week : Professor Who Authored Hoax Papers Says Portland State University Has Launched Disciplinary Proceedings Against Him (archive)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:26AM (4 children)
Or we could just discuss the merits of the case instead of fantasy psychology that is entirely irrelevant. The investigation already happened and a conclusion came out that was other than a complete dismissal of the investigation. That's a strong indication that something went wrong with the investigation right there.
Now, I don't think it's a secret that I don't respect the idea of institutional review boards in the first place. Here, it's particularly nasty since it's being used to suppress the speech of the professor in question. Even though employers normally have a right to condition employment on the public behavior of their employees, they forgo that right when they encourage, as most universities do, including Portland State, an atmosphere of open speech.
Thus, here's my counterargument against the above claim. First, there's real disagreement about whether ethics boards should have this sort of power. Second, the review board was stretching a lot to condemn the professor for these particular actions. Think about it - "human experimentation" and "falsification of data"? Sure, the interpretation was barely valid, but here's the important point. They could have interpreted it as not human experiment and falsification of data with equal legal validity. My view is that when regulation allows for an action to be both legal/allowed and illegal/unallowed, the presumption should be on it being legal or allowed.
Then there's the conflict of interest in the review board since as was claimed in a faculty letter, the research could have blowback on the university as punishment.
Notice the emphasis on the reputation of the university and harm it could do to students. Absurd, but something that could easily warp the conclusions of a review board.
Finally, the board was created as a condition of federal funding:
That means when its federally-mandated actions hinder the free speech rights of one of its professors, it becomes a violation of the professor's First Amendment right to speech.
Calling this concern some weird psychology buzzword completely misses the point. There's reason for the concern when an investigation of academia gets attacked in this way.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:46PM (1 child)
You are one of those reactionary authoritarians who is deep into the collective narcissism. And guess what? Your butthurt screed in response basically confirms it. The thing about narcissists, you are all so pathetically thin skinned. You shit on the people you resent and act like y'all are just clinically describing the facts without any political correctness. But when even a hint of that gets turned around on you, you go ballistic.
We see through your bullshit and we ain't having it any more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @04:48AM
I notice you never ever say why you hold that opinion.
Why would a post presenting a sensible correction ever be considered evidence for "thin skinned"? It's interesting how accepting unquestioningly an asinine argument is considered more of a virtue here. Maybe being thin skinned, even when it actually happens, is by far the lesser of evils?
And by "shit", you mean what? "acting like y'all are just clinically describing the facts" isn't much of a thing.
I think there's a pop psychology word that completely describes what's going on here - "projection". For example, an AC (perhaps you?) blathered [soylentnews.org] on about "DARVO" (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) as if it were peculiar to narcissism. You are definitely going through the "ARVO" part with an attack that is without substance and then accusing me of "shitting" on you as if you were the victim (though how that supposedly works through the internet is left unmentioned). So odd that a supposed behavior of narcissism is discussed and then prominently described in your above post. But I suppose you'll just deny that my accusation is true, and then repeat the DARVO behavior.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:59PM (1 child)
Seems to me that over the years you have demonstrated a real antipathy for psychology. Recently I had an epiphany. The problem is you don't understand yourself, I mean like your motivations and biases are a complete cipher to your own mind. You are a poster-child for living the un-examined life. And the idea that other people can figure you out using science really chaps your ass.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @04:55AM
Indeed. Ranting on the internet is not the place for psychology. You know nothing of the people you're speaking about.
It's a common weakness of many fields of knowledge. You're exposed to it for the first time and then think that you can readily apply it anywhere without consideration for whether you know enough to apply it, much less apply it well enough to be of benefit.
And hurling thoughtless insults is sure to make me examine my life.
Let's suppose that were true. So what is said chapping of the ass to you? Doesn't sound like you care except as a means to nettle me. Someone who can modify my behavior via brutal torture would also chap my ass. If it were as you say, it's a cruel use of knowledge.
But that's an "if" that's not true. The obvious sign that you're not using science, is that you don't deal in observation. Asserting things isn't observing things!