Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 08 2018

Did you mean to post % of migrants that are rapists?
Because what it looks like is that you posted Arrest rates in NYC instead. Congrats, you showed me that your entire stock and trade is cherrypicking.

November 07 2018

2815 d16a 500
Reposted fromtotal1ty total1ty
>called out on being an idiot, better deflect
>y-you're the retarded one
>"However it has been shown that even without hairs, several wasp species are able to effectively transport pollen, therefore contributing for potential pollination of several plant species."
>fuck wasps

Their benefits far outweigh your grief with them.
They play a large part as a control predator for a large variety of other pests (including more aggressive solitary wasps), protecting crops, limiting our need for pesticides, their life cycles are tied with certain plants whose fruits sustain thousands of other species, like birds, to the degree where the extinction of wasps would be the extinction of the plant, yadda yadda. They are not as effective at pollination as bees are, but that's not the only thing that matters.

>youre confusing the exeption with the rule
On what planet? 
Are we gonna play another game of "cherrypicked cases of migrants"?

November 06 2018

>pollinators like bees and wasps(yes, wasps are pollinators too) in massive decline because of overuse of pesticides
>hurf durf bees are white people and wasps are immigrants xD
yeah totally xddd

Reposted bynaichoipojara
They're from the monster hunter Franchise.
From smallest to largest:
Kiring, Rajang, Tigrex, Deviljho, Alatreon, White Fatalis, Lao-Shan Lung. 
1648 393d 500
i just do this
Reposted byjustsomekatshimapanslova
>Anon et al., >>>/sci/3730074

November 05 2018

>change isn't supposed to make you feel bad and uncomfortable either
Oh, but it does. Every bit of information that challenges your set of beliefs creates cognitive dissonance. Emotional, defensive responses will follow almost invariably. The neuroscience of threat/reward speaks clear about this. Our brains are not fans of attempts to populate it with ideas that threaten its identity. It's difficult to accept change without discomfort. 

>there are ways to make it more or less palatable and the instance i commented on is of the latter variety.
In this particular case, I believe the image is just about stupid enough and the response just about childish enough that we're well and beyond the point of civil discourse and politeness, or rather, there was no grounds for it to have existed in the first place. 

Thanks for asking.
It's a known flaw in academic publications that its assumption of widespread good-faith means that occasionally, and only with the right amount of citations, the right peers and a hefty amount of bad faith, you can slip in fraudulent papers. 

It is no surprise that it took them 10 months to do this, and they admit themselves that they couldn't get published until they started reading pre-existing work in the field and basing theirs off of it (which is how research is supposed to work), which they dubiously dub as "grievance studies".. which is a disrespectful, hand-waving dismissal of several fields at once. 
Another thing that irks me is the lack of control (not papers published to journals outside of the ""grievance"" field) 
the dishonesty (the claim that all seven journals are peer-reviewed (four of them), 
the claim that they are academic (two of them), 
the claim that they just dressed up Mein Kampf and got it published (the chapter was extensively rewritten such that a side-by-side comparison wouldn't show much similarity, it's about oppression in general, but by the Hoaxer's account you'd think it was straight up nazi diatribe that got published, but that's not the case at all)

Also the claim that the papers are inherently rubbish, which is true for their data, but that doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong. The arguments in some of these papers appear to be plausible and seem to draw on the relevant literature. 

I don't think the hoax was unethical, even though it was dishonest. But this is exactly how you build bad reputation in academia and how you are destroying your future chances of getting published.AKA the reason why a widespread assumption of not-fraud exists in the first place. It doesn't mean that bad papers don't get published, which they do all the time in every academic field, as even bad peers can build a circle. 

I think bergstrom put it best with:
"Peer review is simply not designed to detect fraud. It doesn’t need to be. Fraud is uncovered in due course, and severe professional consequences deter almost all such behavior. Nor is the peer-review process designed to weed out every crazy idea. Given the self-correcting nature of scholarship, it is far better to let through a few bad ideas than to publish only those that are so self-evident as to be without controversy."

So I'm not intent on congratulating 3 Ph.D.s for their academic misconduct that proved exactly nothing, except this time it's ~ p o l i t i c a l ~ because far-right anti-intellectuals don't understand anything about peer review and think these efforts prove "corruption" in the humanities. It's a yikes from me.
Reposted byneoraiderareyoubored

November 04 2018

change isn't supposed to feel good and comfortable
hence why asking people to change makes them go like people ITT

i mean the second time around I'm reading about this
third if we include sokal hoax
it's just boring and unimpressive and doesn't prove what they think it proves
oh hey it's twice as boring the second time around

November 03 2018

9315 65dc 500
Reposted bypwg pwg
9314 bfdf 500
8573 3333
Reposted fromzciach zciach vianaich naich
8798 8fc9 500
had to been done ur welcome
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!