Was the research paper hoax wrong?

I'm sure most have heard about this, but if not I'll give a brief summary:

Three academics conducted an experiment where they wrote fake papers on insane subjects and submitted them to prominent academic journals. For example one paper was about how dog humping at dog parks is evidence of rape culture. Another rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. Some of these papers ended up being published.

Now some, especially the places that got duped, are more upset at the people who did the hoax than they are over their low standards.

So did these academics go too far in what they did? Or were they right to expose this?

They were right to expose them. The fact that any of those papers were published or even seriously considered for publishing shows the decay of standards and morals in parts of our academia.

No, and this type of quality control work should be done as part of a routine check.

Other disciplines are required to do Quality Assurance activities like this. So why not the Psychology space? It's rather ridiculous that they are not QA'd like this.

It is one of the biggest criticisms right now in this particular area of academia. Many studies cannot even be replicated.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te

It is so bad that this is called the "replication crisis." There are far too many agendas and not enough actual science being done in psychology. This is a plague of the social sciences. Sucks. But it's time more rigor was brought into the social sciences.

Psychology has always been a shambles for its due diligence in publishing papers. A Mickey Mouse science for Mickey Mouse scientists. It's the predominant reason when I was studying that I moved undergraduate degrees from forensic psychobiology to forensic science.

Like I've said often, psychology is often questionable on many levels. Jaden is bang on the money. I studied Molecular Biology and then Genetics, facts and evidence are far more interesting than waffle.

They didn't Proof Read da shit before they posted it. Its all ON THEM!

Reminds me of this:
https://www.apnews.com/32a98e290c49d9efe147b52dbb784e88

I'm on the side of the academics. Stuff like this should've been quality/peer-reviewed before being published.

^ I could be wrong but I believe some of it actually was.

Originally posted by mike brown
^ I could be wrong but I believe some of it actually was.

Apparently, this type of literary experiment has been done a few times:
http://ecclesiastes911.net/publishers_rejected_classics_in_disguise/

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sure most have heard about this, but if not I'll give a brief summary:

Three academics conducted an experiment where they wrote fake papers on insane subjects and submitted them to prominent academic journals. For example one paper was about how dog humping at dog parks is evidence of rape culture. Another rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism. Some of these papers ended up being published.

Now some, especially the places that got duped, are more upset at the people who did the hoax than they are over their low standards.

So did these academics go too far in what they did? Or were they right to expose this?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I studied Molecular Biology and then Genetics,

My 'significant other' is also in this domain. Important field of study. 🙂

They were in the right.

It is also the reason why I think SJW's are particularly harmful. These idiotic, disprovable studies are published in academic journals, and given "credibility". When you see some idiot on TV quote a "study", ask for a reference, and source it yourself. You'll be surprised how often it leads to one of these.

Then they begin to influence public policy because people believe in academic journals. And studies that might go against the current narrative, even if they are better thought out, and more comprehensive, might be left on the drawing board because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think it is a MASSIVE problem.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
They were in the right.

It is also the reason why I think SJW's are particularly harmful. These idiotic, disprovable studies are published in academic journals, and given "credibility". When you see some idiot on TV quote a "study", ask for a reference, and source it yourself. You'll be surprised how often it leads to one of these.

Then they begin to influence public policy because people believe in academic journals. And studies that might go against the current narrative, even if they are better thought out, and more comprehensive, might be left on the drawing board because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think it is a MASSIVE problem.

I'll give you a simple example of badly popularised Science, my old friend JP, why hasn't anyone told him Lobsters developed 350 million years ago, not humans diverged from them then. I suspect
although I've never looked it up humans diverged about a billion years ago from a common ancestor. The guy is a hack.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The same can be said for a lot of the "leaps" rightists make to try and use biology to justify psychology. It's often extremely questionable and usually based on the relatively debunked "pleasure" principle.

Ok.

I think we can all agree that all pseudo-science is bad.

My issue with these type of studies is that well-meaning politicians, that try to be progressive, may base policy on junk.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
They were in the right.

It is also the reason why I think SJW's are particularly harmful. These idiotic, disprovable studies are published in academic journals, and given "credibility". When you see some idiot on TV quote a "study", ask for a reference, and source it yourself. You'll be surprised how often it leads to one of these.

Then they begin to influence public policy because people believe in academic journals. And studies that might go against the current narrative, even if they are better thought out, and more comprehensive, might be left on the drawing board because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think it is a MASSIVE problem.

It's just that whenever I think about this story I think back to all the times I've read or listened to someone discussing a certain study or paper and saying it was "peer reviewed" in order to lend credibility to it.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's just that whenever I think about this story I think back to all the times I've read or listened to someone discussing a certain study or paper and saying it was "peer reviewed" in order to lend credibility to it.

Taken from.elsewhere but hilarious nonetheless.

First, the fact that our nervous systems are actually very different from lobsters (is that really shocking?). Second, Peterson claims that humans and lobsters diverged 350 million years ago, which is just one example of his ignorance of evolutionary biology: although the ancestors of lobsters did appear around 350 million years ago, they’re invertebrates, while humans are vertebrates. These groups on the phylogenetic tree diverged at least half a billion years ago. Why not compare humans to animals that are much closer genetically, like bonobos, where we can see evidence of social cooperation? Or if we don’t really care about the scale of the evolutionary timeline – since Peterson clearly doesn’t! – hell, why not look at colonies of bacteria that have exhibited forms of cooperation? Or how about looking at the male seahorse as proof of how men are natural caregivers who should abandon our jobs to care for our young? Or hey, look at the preying mantis – maybe women should cannibalize their mates!

Bad Science is everywhere.

I do not know enough about evolutionary biology to discuss the merits of Dr. Peterson's Lobster example.

Why is that relevant here however? How is it even remotely comparable in terms of the scale and potential damage that the ideology that is rampant in academia can do to society? One of the academics who was part of the Gender Grievance studies hoax, received a call from a U.N. Ambassador to advice on policy because of one his false papers because it aligned with a leftist narrative.

Really comprehend that for a minute. Take a step back, think about that for 40 seconds. That is utterly insane. Now imagine the sheer NUMBER of students being indoctrinated by these thoughts, and are sent into the world.

Can we stick to the topic at hand? This is the second time you have mentioned the Lobster thing. It has been acknowledged, but we want to discuss the topic at hand.

I think the idea that Dr. Peterson is worth mentioning compared to this is underestimating the scale of the issue. There are people, professional academics, who have no ability to think critically. They have been indoctrinated to a radical degree. Ideas that disagree with them, were forced to be edited by editors before it was published. Conclusions are FORMED. Any pseudo-research is used to fill in the gap. It is the opposite of science, and it is so widespread, it is legit a public crisis imho. We are raising an entire generation of academics incapable of confronting ideas they disagree with or dissecting arguments in a logical manner. I see this every day. Undergraduates who are incapable of holding an open conversation with any degree of aggression or conflict. They immediately fold. Children, in the bodies of young adults.

We will all be speaking Mandarin within 3 generations at this rate in the province of New Beijing. We're raising mentally stunted pussies with a shit work ethic. It's not all bad, but I can notice an OVERALL decrease in quality of freshmen. This is all anecdotal and could be utter bullshit so feel free to ignore. Maybe my experience with this year's undergraduates was just improbably poor. I don't have the data to give factual conclusions.

Everyone makes the retarded argument "ermagerd, lobsters diverged from us a long time ago, that makes it retarded" that's the point, the point is to show that it's not a cultural phenomenon, but a biological one so deep that it manifests across species as different as humans and lobsters.

And yes, Jordan Peterson does in the broad span of his work cite to creatures we are more closely related to, such as when referring to experiments on rats, or the social structures of other primates. He does mention them as well. Everyone just likes to hone in on the misconception that he only talks about the lobster.

It's also a complete mischaracterization of him to suggest that he's saying people shouldn't cooperate. Because he does mention closer relatives such as primates, and when discussing their social structures he mentions that things tend to not turn out so well for the alpha chimps that aren't cooperative or reciprocal in their relationship with the other chimps.

He has also stated that a reasonable political left-wing is a necessary part of political discourse, because in his view just as the existence of competence hierarchies is necessary in the pursuit of something of value which the right recognizes, the left is also necessary because people are also displaced and left at the bottom in unfortunate positions, and that it's not a good thing to have people stack up at the bottom in need because then they're suffering as individuals and it destabilizes society as a whole. He has actually praised some of the historic accomplishments of the political left in Canada such as workers protections, the Canadian healthcare system, etc. and think it's a good thing for part of the political system to advocate for the working class.

He also has said for people to adopt responsibility not just for selfish ambition but so they can be of use to the people around them. Something he said was that it's an admirable goal to be the kind of person the rest of your family can rely on at a funeral when a loved one dies. He argues that the point of personal responsibility isn't just so that you can take care of yourself but also your family and the broader community.

You seem to have this misguided understanding of Jordan Peterson's views that essentially amounts to a caricature. He's not some proponent of the idea that cooperation is bad and that it should just be every man for himself, and has said many such things to the contrary.

Originally posted by Mindship
To be clear, I meant the academic papers should've been reviewed, not the Yearling manuscript -- though it would seem that one big house editor may never have even read the novel, let alone the disguised submission.

Apparently, this type of literary experiment has been done a few times:
http://ecclesiastes911.net/publishers_rejected_classics_in_disguise/