Philosopher Peter Boghossian and mathematician James Lindsay perpetrated a hoax intended to expose gender studies as a sham, and they succeeded. The respected professors submitted an absurd article — which blamed penises for global warming — to a respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal — which gullibly printed it. In perpetrating their hoax, the professors said they sought to expose academia as shallow, credulous and painfully politically correct.
Originally posted by @whodey https://heatst.com/culture-wars/professors-pull-off-clever-hoax-with-penis-paper-expose-liberal-academia-as-a-sham/
Philosopher Peter Boghossian and mathematician James Lindsay perpetrated a hoax intended to expose gender studies as a sham, and they succeeded. The respected professors submitted an absurd article — which blamed penises for global warming — ...[text shortened]... ors said they sought to expose academia as shallow, credulous and painfully politically correct.
Cogent Social Sciences is a BS pay-per-pub outfit.I wouldn't get too worked up over it.
When they get their hoax paper into the NE Journal of Medicine, let me know.
Cogent Social Sciences is not a "respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal." It's a rubbish pay-to-publish journal, and these kind of journals have routinely published works lacking any scientific merit.
Once again, you've been played for a fool, whodey. How do you feel about that? Do you think it might be time to consider whether you are sufficiently critically evaluating everything you read in the gutters of the Internet?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Cogent Social Sciences is not a "respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal." It's a rubbish pay-to-publish journal, and these kind of journals have routinely published works lacking any scientific merit.
Once again, you've been played for a fool, whodey. How do you feel about that? Do you think it might be time to consider whether you are sufficiently critically evaluating everything you read in the gutters of the Internet?
Originally posted by @whodey So you are saying they are like CNN?
I'm saying that you are - once again - consuming and regurgitating obviously false stories. Does it not concern you that you are so gullible that this happens over and over and over and over and over again?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra I'm saying that you are - once again - consuming and regurgitating obviously false stories. Does it not concern you that you are so gullible that this happens over and over and over and over and over again?
Originally posted by @whodey I don't care what you say, this is funny as hell.
Next up, the NE Journal.
Whatever amuses you, whodey.
This kind of publication does not get into well-respected journals, which employ rigorous peer review and editorial oversight. That would be like saying CNN will air stories suggesting there are child abuse rings in pizza parlours just because InfoWars does.
Still no thoughts on being deceived again? No apology for peddling blatant lies?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Whatever amuses you, whodey.
This kind of publication does not get into well-respected journals, which employ rigorous peer review and editorial oversight. That would be like saying CNN will air stories suggesting there are child abuse rings in pizza parlours just because InfoWars does.
Still no thoughts on being deceived again? No apology for peddling blatant lies?
Here is a comprehensive list of things that global warming causes.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Cogent Social Sciences is not a "respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal." It's a rubbish pay-to-publish journal, and these kind of journals have routinely published works lacking any scientific merit.
Once again, you've been played for a fool, whodey. How do you feel about that? Do you think it might be time to consider whether you are sufficiently critically evaluating everything you read in the gutters of the Internet?
So is it your position that penises do not contribute to world wide gullible warming?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra Whatever amuses you, whodey.
This kind of publication does not get into well-respected journals, which employ rigorous peer review and editorial oversight. That would be like saying CNN will air stories suggesting there are child abuse rings in pizza parlours just because InfoWars does.
Still no thoughts on being deceived again? No apology for peddling blatant lies?
LOL
Still no thoughts on being deceived again? No apology for peddling blatant lies?