Society/Culture The Humanities: A cesspool of academic fraud

[Snake_Baker]

Or, language has a history attached to it and words have definitions. Otherwise, how does conversation work?

This insincere picking apart of arguments via unrelated context basically sums up the discipline in the contemporary setting.

 

[Gethelred]

This insincere picking apart of arguments via unrelated context basically sums up the discipline in the contemporary setting.

I have a question. Does the word Nazi have both a historical meaning and a definition that, when a person expresses particular views, associates themselves with that historical meaning?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I have a question. Does the word Nazi have both a historical meaning and a definition that, when a person expresses particular views, associates themselves with that historical meaning?

Don't even begin to try and pull this bullshit with me.

 

[Gethelred]

Don't even begin to try and pull this bullshit with me.

I'm not trying anything. You seem to not like the way language functions, and that isn't really my problem.

You're welcome to try and get people to change completely the way they converse, but it's rather difficult to get ideas or understanding across without collective/mutual agreement of definition.

I'll be eagerly waiting to see what you come up with.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm not trying anything. You seem to not like the way language functions, and that isn't really my problem.

You seem to think that you are some type of arbitrary authority on the matter and can therefore cut & paste other peoples communications to suit whatever purpose you determine.

It's classical postmodernist bullshit. The inversion of the stated paradigm to suit your own purpose.

 

[Gethelred]

You seem to think that you are some type of arbitrary authority on the matter and can therefore cut & paste other peoples communications to suit whatever purpose you determine.

It's classical postmodernist bullshit.

Except I've not held myself as any authority. All I've done in this thread is asked how someone else uses a term. You've then proceeded to inform me that asking someone else what they meant is, essentially, why you made this thread.

Here's an idea: go around and start calling people genocide enablers. When they object to your accusation - potentially violently - you can react by ensuring them that your own inbuilt meaning for the term 'genocide enabler' is different to the collectively understood one, and you can ask them why they punched you in the face.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Except I've not held myself as any authority.

Your lack of introspection is staggering.

 

[Gethelred]

Your lack of introspection is staggering.

And you're foundering, so snap!

 

[Gethelred]

I look forward to Snake_Baker's new means of communication that features no communal agreement of definition. Should be good.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I look forward to Snake_Baker's new means of communication that features no communal agreement of definition. Should be good.

Sound like how the partisan sides of us politics communicate - with no communal agreement as to what is fact

 

[pugsville]

This is the type of bullshit allusion that has turned the humanities in to a toilet.

Yup how dare humanities people actually research the facts, when daddy Petersen can feed crackpot ocnspiracy theories to us that appeal to our biases. It relives us our the burden of thinking critical for our selves,

Your OP Petersen video is based on just idiotic statistics that included nn article like book reviews, and as ususal Jordasn Petersen is talking BS. He talks a lot about evdience based reserach, well he's mastered the art of sounding convincing, his research skills are sadly lacking.

And are you going actually address the facts? Or stick with you subjetcive , deeply flawed opinions?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yup how dare humanities people actually research the facts, when daddy Petersen can feed crackpot ocnspiracy theories to us that appeal to our biases. It relives us our the burden of thinking critical for our selves,

Your OP Petersen video is based on just idiotic statistics that included nn article like book reviews, and as ususal Jordasn Petersen is talking BS. He talks a lot about evdience based reserach, well he's mastered the art of sounding convincing, his research skills are sadly lacking.

And are you going actually address the facts? Or stick with you subjetcive , deeply flawed opinions?

Are you actually of adult age?

 

[pugsville]

Are you actually of adult age?

Are you ever going to actually address something of substance?

The Petersen video is based on deeply flawed study whose statistics are near meaningless by including many things which were not articles.

You have not produced anything, Petersen videos of otherwise which is actually about fraud.

Substance, evidence.

 

[Rob]

If that number is true - and it may well be - it shouldn't really surprise anyone.

For most studies in a lot of areas of humanities the conclusion is written before any research is done. If you already know what your paper is going to say, why bother doing research (and therefore citing) others?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I look forward to Snake_Baker's new means of communication that features no communal agreement of definition. Should be good.

I'll leave shifting about the fine print to manipulate posters comments in your court.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Are you ever going to actually address something of substance?

1) I have.
2) You don't have any.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If that number is true - and it may well be - it shouldn't really surprise anyone.

For most studies in a lot of areas of humanities the conclusion is written before any research is done. If you already know what your paper is going to say, why bother doing research (and therefore citing) others?

Autoethnography.

This is the sort of fluffy drivel that has filled the halls of academia with tripe. If not for university professorships & admin positions, or low level government jobs, these people would never get employed. They ARE a parasite on the taxpayer.

Check out this twit:

 

[Snake_Baker]

Check this one out. This is an ACTUAL thesis.

This dance performance was created in conjunction with my thesis work, "Dancing My Adoptive Identity: An Autoethnographic Analysis of Adoption Narratives and Performance of Identity."

 

[Snake_Baker]

This one is probably the Dean of a University by now.

 

[pugsville]

If that number is true - and it may well be - it shouldn't really surprise anyone.

For most studies in a lot of areas of humanities the conclusion is written before any research is done. If you already know what your paper is going to say, why bother doing research (and therefore citing) others?

Ar you not paying attention the numbers used by Peterson are complete inaccurate. The Study they were based on countered everything in the journals, book reviews etc as articles. Peterson shot his mouth off being wildly inaccurate, used extrmely flawed information.

 

[pugsville]

1) I have.
2) You don't have any.

You have not. Neither has Peterson posting about few single examples doe snot in any way make you argument. There plenty of examples of crud in many fields. A few salient examples does not in any way make a substantive cases that the entire field is dominated by such works.

Your evidence cannot support your argument. Neither does Peterson;s. He talks a lot about evidence, but rarely provides any and when it doe it's usually deeply flawed as it was in this case.

Petersen has mastered the art of sounding convincing. He has failed actually doing the research to actually know what he is talking about.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You have not. Neither has Peterson posting about few single examples doe snot in any way make you argument. There plenty of examples of crud in many fields. A few salient examples does not in any way make a substantive cases that the entire field is dominated by such works.

Your evidence cannot support your argument. Neither does Peterson;s. He talks a lot about evidence, but rarely provides any and when it doe it's usually deeply flawed as it was in this case.

Petersen has mastered the art of sounding convincing. He has failed actually doing the research to actually know what he is talking about.

You're keeping a very narrow focus upon Peterson himself and are basically ignoring the premise of this thread.

I also get why you're doing that. The embarrassment that the humanities has become cannot be made to go away with a simple band aid fix. Peterson is not the only person who is calling out this charade.

 

[Gethelred]

I'll leave shifting about the fine print to manipulate posters comments in your court.

I'm sorry, but you've not supplied me with your definitions of the words you've used in this post. How am I to know what you're saying?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm sorry, but you've not supplied me with your definitions of the words you've used in this post. How am I to know what you're saying?

I will provide my definitions via autoethnographic exploration.

 

[Gethelred]

I will provide my definitions via autoethnographic exploration.

Awesome. I look forward to reading it.

I do have a question, though. If we cannot reach a consensus on what each individual word means or signifies, how then can I understand your autoethnographic exploration?

You've clearly got your gripes here, and based on the 20 seconds of research I've done concerning autoethnographic exploration it's kind of dumb (as well as has its own critics from within it's area) but you're kind of objecting to the nature of language and how it functions as knowledge transference.

That is just as silly, really.