9 thoughts on “Grievance Studies”

  1. Sean Carroll is a post-empiricist nitwit about his beloved string theory, so I’m not surprised he’s butthurt about some people putting some over on the grievance studies microcephalics.

    1. I too have “issues” with this stunt.

      The writing, review and publication of scholarly papers is largely built on an honor system that the scholar writing a paper is acting “in good faith”, that when an author or a group of joint authors states that they, say, ran an experiment, collected results, reduced the data and then describe them in a paper that they didn’t just “make stuff up.”

      Yes, you have peer review, but the purpose of the peer review is not to sniff out outright fraud. A reviewer generally assumes that the paper was written in good faith and then the reviewer comments on whether the math has errors, the experiment has been done and reported on before, the data don’t support the conclusions and so on. It is actually pretty easy to get stuff published if you are willing to commit fraud and say that you got an interesting result without having actually run the experiment. That is why when fraud is exposed that it is such a serious scandal.

      Now this group of authors/investigators is taking the position that a certain area of scholarly activity is in actuality “scholarship theatre” in the way some claim that airport screening is “security theatre.”

      So let’s just posit that the fine Federal workers running airport security screening are “job holders” counting the days until their pensions vest and are not effectively screening for anything. Suppose those same author/investigators smuggled sharp metal objects and fake bombs past security and then disclosed what they were doing and how this shows the security screening to be a joke.

      If those authors/investigators were acting under “color of law”, say from the Inspector General’s office or were Federal Marshals charged with running such tests of the security screen, I guess we would be OK that one arm of the Federal Government was checking up on another. But if some civilians just decided on their own initiative to run such tests, wouldn’t this generate some degree of alarm and perhaps serious charges against them? If you think the TSA is a joke, you can write your Member of Congress or publish an op-ed in the paper, but the law doesn’t give you the authority to conduct drills against the vigilance of the airport screeners?

      So we think it to be a joke that some area of scholarship we don’t hold in high esteem published papers that were insincere but had the sheen of sincerity and earnestness in a field that is largely about subjective impressions? What about falsifying data, publishing in some hard-science venue, not claiming anything game-changing that may invite tough scrutiny but some incremental advance that seems plausible? And then saying, “you guys are doofuses because you just got pranked.”

      We can hold Grievance Studies in low esteem, but that doesn’t give us license to pull a stunt like this.

      1. The whole point is to demonstrate that grievance studies is not science or scholarship. There are no standards. It’s complete nonsense.

      2. I’m not a scientist, but I think there’s a valid argument to be made that Grievance Studies is itself a stunt that violates the “good faith” assumption. The journals have been falling prey to fraud from sincere GS “scholars” for years already.

      3. and then the reviewer comments on whether the math has errors, the experiment has been done and reported on before, the data don’t support the conclusions

        If there is no math, no experiment and no data I would think any “peer” would be qualified to recognize that and act accordingly. I would also think the entire concept of the taxpayer being forced to fund this… activity might also be a subject worth pondering by a “peer”.

        But I’m an idiot who should never be allowed within the same zip code of any elite institution of learning.

      4. We can hold Grievance Studies in low esteem, but that doesn’t give us license to pull a stunt like this.

        The problem with the TSA testing you mentioned is three-fold. First, the nature of the testing is harmful. Resources would be diverted each time the testing is discovered and flights could be delayed significantly (particularly, if the pattern of testing is discovered and the TSA reacts by slowing or shutting down major portions of US air travel in response). Second, it could be exploited by a foe to deliver a real attack. Third, the nature of the activities is criminal. This both means that the testers’ unauthorized activities are considered serious felonies and that the TSA could use its policing power to hide from the public any legitimate problems that are discovered.

        None of those problems apply to the current situation.

        You have none of the drawbacks of unauthorized testing of the TSA with no harm to public or testers possible. And the only harm to the “grievance studies” journals is a deserved blow to their reputation.

        Keep in mind that the authors of these papers were conducting a game where they attempted to rationalize some crazy idea and often succeeded. In fact, they had to prematurely end the test because one paper was eventually exposed by “a platform dedicated to exposing shoddy scholarship” which apparently led to an internet-organized investigation of its imaginary authors.

        That tells me that there is a serious problem with those journals and how they review research that such things get through. Any consideration of “good faith” is ridiculous in this light. All the scientific community had to do was have a sufficiently decent review process to reject utter crap. That they so frequently fail (success rate for the papers was above 50%) waives any good faith argument.

        1. All the scientific community

          Sorry. I wrote that without thinking – academic community. I’m not pretending this is science.

  2. Don’t laugh. Grievance studies are the source of the “my feelings require you to follow my rules” tactics of the SJWs. It’s as if the entire purpose of the studies is as a taxpayer funded research and development think tank for cultural sabotage and the subsequent attainment of power. The fact that people not versed in the subject can, by using some random jargon, be published in the literature ipso facto disqualifies the entire subject as an academic field. Subsequently, this is evidence that should be immediately applied to defund a cancerous pseudo academic subject.

Comments are closed.