Society/Culture The Humanities: A cesspool of academic fraud

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Gough]

Here's another YouTube video.

 

[Hoops]

Oh, the humanities!

 

[owen87]

It's not just humanities, the requirement for PhD's to be novel research leads to increasingly niche and bizarre publications.

But yes, they're not wrong that much of the research in humanities has little to no benefit or application, thus why no one ever cites it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here's another YouTube video.

Pick the poster who doesn't want this topic addressed.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Seems to be a disproportionate emphasis on it as part of High School English.

 

[M Malice]

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You should photo shop Jordan Peterson into a North jumper.

 

[pugsville]

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from the best shearer of gullible sheep on tht internet,

Just appeal to people's prejudices and riches can be yours,

Why does anyone listen to this man's crap really.

"The analysis looked at publications from 1984 and counted whether they were cited within five years of when they were first published. And it found the dismal results Pearlstein cites (by way of Bok) for the humanities: 98 percent of articles went uncited, as did 75 percent of articles in the social sciences.


But the data included all items published in journals, not just research. It also counted obituaries, letters to the editor, and meeting minutes, as David Pendlebury, a researcher at ISI, pointed out in a 1991 letter to the editor of Science critiquing the study. And those non-article items were particularly prevalent in humanities, where they made up 69 percent of the "journal articles" in the citation index."

Stat check: Is 98% of research in humanities and 75% in social science never cited again?

Those startling claims are based on an outdated, inaccurate study.

www.vox.com

Study examines the research that never receives a citation

Analysis suggests big differences among disciplines in the volume of scholarship that fails to garner a citation.

www.insidehighered.com

There are Lies, there are *DAMMED* lies and then there are Statistics.


Statistics without context are meaningless. In this case what is an articles and what is citation. And What does this mean in the field in question,.

Without context and information what a statistic means, the statistic is pretty much meaningless.



Petersen - the pendling of fake outrage to the easily triggered via their prejudices and tropes in the popular media. And peole lap it up. Feed them their own prejudices, and you will be popular,
'

Totally inaccurate thread title. No evidence of fraud was even presented or mentioned. At best low quality work, however this is not in anyway, fraud.

 

[Seeds]

If you are going to post about this topic use videos/articles from credible people like steven pinker who have a lot to say on the topic from positions of experience. Not morons like peterson. It does a very valid topic and argument significant disservice and turns it partisan.

 

[William Wonka]

So?

 

[Snake_Baker]

If you are going to post about this topic use videos/articles from credible people like steven pinker who have a lot to say on the topic from positions of experience. Not morons like peterson. It does a very valid topic and argument significant disservice and turns it partisan.

I reckon the critics that actually understand Peterson are in the 0.1% range, and you're not one of them.

He's intelligent.

You're not.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from the best shearer of gullible sheep on tht internet,

Just appeal to people's prejudices and riches can be yours,

Why does anyone listen to this man's crap really.

"The analysis looked at publications from 1984 and counted whether they were cited within five years of when they were first published. And it found the dismal results Pearlstein cites (by way of Bok) for the humanities: 98 percent of articles went uncited, as did 75 percent of articles in the social sciences.


But the data included all items published in journals, not just research. It also counted obituaries, letters to the editor, and meeting minutes, as David Pendlebury, a researcher at ISI, pointed out in a 1991 letter to the editor of Science critiquing the study. And those non-article items were particularly prevalent in humanities, where they made up 69 percent of the "journal articles" in the citation index."

Stat check: Is 98% of research in humanities and 75% in social science never cited again?

Those startling claims are based on an outdated, inaccurate study.

www.vox.com

Study examines the research that never receives a citation

Analysis suggests big differences among disciplines in the volume of scholarship that fails to garner a citation.

www.insidehighered.com

There are Lies, there are *DAMMED* lies and then there are Statistics.


Statistics without context are meaningless. In this case what is an articles and what is citation. And What does this mean in the field in question,.

Without context and information what a statistic means, the statistic is pretty much meaningless.



Petersen - the pendling of fake outrage to the easily triggered via their prejudices and tropes in the popular media. And peole lap it up. Feed them their own prejudices, and you will be popular,
'

Totally inaccurate thread title. No evidence of fraud was even presented or mentioned. At best low quality work, however this is not in anyway, fraud.

Pick the sociologist.

 

[pugsville]

Pick the sociologist.

yeah go the man, when your logic is shown to be faulty.Yeah but someone in nice little box, which somehow invaildates their agrumeht ratehr than addresisng any actual issue. Petersen has taught you well.

Not a sociologist, though I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Studying History but a long career in software development before that.

Petersen is indulging in little more than abuse the ritualistic flogging of out-groups, the confirmation of people'ss biases and prejudices. he had no interest in being far or some sort of reasonable critical examination of the issue. It's virtue signaling and evoking peolle prejudices, creating a chractuture that can be attacked and flayed for the popular audience's gratifcation. It's very popular and successful tactic.

Congratulations on your contribution to the standard of debate of the internet.

 

[pugsville]

I reckon the critics that actually understand Peterson are in the 0.1% range, and you're not one of them.

He's intelligent.

You're not.

Have about judging intelligence buy the arguments used., Again just abuse rather than an argument.Calling other people unintelligent, is this your standard of debate or have you got something useful to say"?

I have shown that Petersen claims is based on flawed studied which counts non articles as articles and the headline claims are drastically wrong. You know actual evdience artehr than just taking what I cam told by soem intenert authority (Petersen) who is this case is badly worng, just because it agrees with you prejudices. The correct reposonse to admit your error is teh opening post and being more critical of where you get your information from and just not agree with people who appeal to your baises and because they are some internet Guru.

But Somehow I thnk there is fat chance of that. You'll come back with some put down or abuse which is your style rather than actually present an argument grounded in facts.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[pugsville]

You started this thread with ca claim about fraud. Any chance of you presenting some evdieence to some this claim? You just plan of posting endless Peterson videos, in which case how about a more honest thread title.

Are you unable to think for yourslef and just relieved that teh hyper efgosist Peterson will do it for you or what?

More virtue signalling. These people are uninterested and actual debate and critical examination. Straw men, rabid caricatures, which is little more the unsustainable abuse without foundation.

Unable to support your point now you chnage the subject. How about evidence based logical debate instead of the cheap shots and unsupported crackpot theories of this poseur?

Like Petersen is actually interested in evidence, he makes no effort to actual check his facts and present evidence. look at the first.


Small minded men ranting about fictitious crackpot tin foil hat straw men,

Who believes this utter crap,?

Make no mistake this is not Petersen misunderstanding what evidence is, is just him creating fictional straw men to tear down.

 

[owen87]

I'm generally not one to put down a poster trying to convey an idea with poor use of language. But jeez you're making it hard.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

This is a worthy thread. In another thread, I mentioned cultural marxism, someone mentioned some whacky, right wing Jewish conspiracy, I had to google what he meant. Wiki has a similar ridiculous interpretation that is not what people mean by the term in probably 99 per cent of cases.

As the thread continued, some idiot then comes out with an unhinged idea that society has never been more egalitarian based purely from racial egalitarianism. Didn't even qualify that's what he meant by egalitarianism at first, racial egalitarianism. This was in my view was the logical example of someone exuding cultural marxism and what I meant by that term. I'd say most people would have a similar interpretation when they use the term cultural marxism too.

 

[Gethelred]

This is a worthy thread. In another thread, I mentioned cultural marxism, someone mentioned some whacky, right wing Jewish conspiracy, I had to google what he meant. Wiki has a similar ridiculous interpretation that is not what people mean by the term in probably 99 per cent of cases.

As the thread continued, some idiot then comes out with an unhinged idea that society has never been more egalitarian based purely from racial egalitarianism. Didn't even qualify that's what he meant by egalitarianism at first, racial egalitarianism. This was in my view was the logical example of someone exuding cultural marxism and what I meant by that term. I'd say most people would have a similar interpretation when they use the term cultural marxism too.

That's because the term cultural marxism has historical roots in - among other things - an antisemetic conspiracy theory.

When you use the term, what do you mean by it?

 

[Snake_Baker]

As the thread continued, some idiot then comes out with an unhinged idea that society has never been more egalitarian based purely from racial egalitarianism.

They're not the full quid.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

That's because the term cultural marxism has historical roots in - among other things - an antisemetic conspiracy theory.

When you use the term, what do you mean by it?

I gave you an example, what are your thoughts on the issue surrounding this interpretation exclusive of the framed wiki term?

 

[Gethelred]

I gave you an example, what are your thoughts on the issue surrounding this interpretation exclusive of the framed wiki term?

You are welcome to continue using a term that - as stated - has its roots in an antisemetic conspiracy theory. I would like to know what you mean by it, so I can understand why one would willingly choose language with historical problems and so I can know what you actually mean by this.

If you don't do this, I'm going to have to take your usage of the term in its traditional sense, as it seems someone else has.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You are welcome to continue using a term that - as stated - has its roots in an antisemetic conspiracy theory. I would like to know what you mean by it, so I can understand why one would willingly choose language with historical problems and so I can know what you actually mean by this.

If you don't do this, I'm going to have to take your usage of the term in its traditional sense, as it seems someone else has.

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

 

[Gethelred]

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

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