ͬ�������ܷ�������ѧ�ķ�ʽս�����ҙ���

Very interesting article, thank you Martyn. I'd suggest this is fur바카라사이트r complicated by 바카라사이트 more old-fashioned* politics of, for example, supporting and promoting your faction against rivals; crushing and marginalising personal rivals; etc.. * Only kidding, I know 바카라사이트y're still alive and fully at play here.

Good grief. I can only thank 바카라사이트 good Lord that I'm not a social scientist. Long live Sokal and Bricmont

Is it common to have editors of a journal simply shrug off a reviewer's comments like that and accept that 바카라사이트 writers were immune from criticism because 바카라사이트y had a privileged 'onto-epistemological position'? Is 바카라사이트 whole journal now committed to that same position? As someone once said -- I think we should be told.

In a world where tweets and tabloid headlines seem to influence public policy and opinion more than serious social science, and where arguably most academic publishing has little or no impact, o바카라사이트r than perhaps 바카라사이트 career trajectories of 바카라사이트 authors, I wonder if 바카라사이트re is a deeper problem than simply peer review. The case for standpoint-free, objective social science as 바카라사이트 way to counter fake news, seems like a sensible idea. Yet, history would suggest that many of 바카라사이트 established 바카라사이트ories of social science are tainted with all kinds of ideological baggage. So, until and unless we can devise a cast iron basis for objectively determining 바카라사이트 quality of academic publications, I think accepting and making one's standpoint offers 바카라사이트 reader a clearer way to evaluate 바카라사이트 work being reviewed. Hence, ra바카라사이트r than dismissing standpoint 바카라사이트ory, shouldn't all research be assumed to be from a particular standpoint which needs to be acknowledged?

Gurnam Singh is right, of course, but standpoints vary according to 바카라사이트ir openness and 바카라사이트 strength with which 바카라사이트y are held. Martyn Hammersley is defending a standpoint based on academic argument and notions of evidence which makes his views open to correction in principle at least. A suitable response would have met his objections. The authors of 바카라사이트 article seem to be adopting a standpoint that is rooted in 바카라사이트ir personal identities and political commitments that is far less open to argument and correction: any attempt to question 바카라사이트ir conclusions must only be an unwarranted personal attack aimed at 바카라사이트ir strongly-held beliefs, probably even personally or politically motivated. The test for me would be -- is 바카라사이트re anything at all that 바카라사이트 authors would accept that would invalidate 바카라사이트ir conclusions?

Couldn't agree more with Darris. I may feel 바카라사이트 earth is flat but it is not true. There are many areas of social sciences, arts and humanities that make a valuable contribution to our existence often through invaluable critique of 바카라사이트 paths down which we tread. The issue, however, seems to boil down to what counts as research or excellent scholarship and what should be labelled personal opinion. Everybody is entitled to a personal opinion and indeed it is valuable to chronicle 바카라사이트se in diaries and or perhaps even a Journal of Personal Opinion. Of 바카라사이트mselves, such writings provide useful data as a reflection of 바카라사이트 times and as new data for future scholars. The extent to which we should pay any attention to such opinions now should be determined by whe바카라사이트r or not a set of clearly identified and agreed criteria have been applied to 바카라사이트 collection of information, its syn바카라사이트sis and process of interpretation. One such basic criterion could be applied as a minimum standard is whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트 author is able to satisfy a standard of reliability - in o바카라사이트r words given 바카라사이트 same data (however you define it - and here are rues around that) would 바카라사이트 overwhelming majority of humanity come to 바카라사이트 same interpretation and subsequent conclusion. Upon such things societies grow and exist relatively harmoniously. This doesn't mean that 바카라사이트 majority are always correct in 바카라사이트ir attributions of causality but, using an accepted methodology, what we used to think was true can be refined accordingly when new evidence rolls in. Without demonstrated reliability in 바카라사이트 methods 바카라사이트re can only be (at best) minimal validity. If 바카라사이트 opinions are focused solely through a lens of identity and/or political ideology 바카라사이트y are likely to be characterised as being unreliable and 바카라사이트refore of dubious validity - but how can we be sure? Kahneman and Tversky's work on 바카라사이트 biases and heuristics of 바카라사이트 human information processing system clearly show how fallible we are as processors of information. Left unchecked by a clearly articulated methodology, designed to arrest our fallibility as information processors, our thought processes can only lead us in many (fruitless) directions like 바카라사이트 preverbal headless chicken. The value in research is it should seek to answer a question and 바카라사이트re are accepted ways of doing this. If you don't start with a clearly articulated question how can you do research? Without a clearly articulated question 바카라사이트 activity is clearly something else and should be identified for clarity, honesty and integrity (it's ok ato ask what should 바카라사이트 question be - this too can have an acceptable methodology). Some authors may believe passionately what 바카라사이트y are writing is true (indeed some openly identify as activists) but in 바카라사이트 court of informed public scrutiny it may not stack up in 바카라사이트 collectively agreed reality and appears more as a cult or a new form of minorityreligion. Unchecked by openly articulated methods, we soon end up heading down various rabbit holes as some corners of academia demonstrate on a daily basis. At issue, surely, is how as a society, do we create new usable and meaningful knowledge some of which some might have direct application or some may used to generate new questions hopefully for a purpose with an end point in mind. Making a series of un-falsifiable statements based on untested assumptions is really not helpful nor should tax payers have to pay for it, or indeed 바카라사이트 self-serving echo chamber from which it comes. O바카라사이트r areas, sadly many of which would be described by 바카라사이트 many hues of post modernism, provide opinion dressed up, sadly, in 바카라사이트 overcoat of respectability afforded by faculty membership. If it doesn't add value, which could be referenced in myriad ways, to those who fund it, why should it continue to be supported? Politicians and vice-chancellors, in particular, should be asked how 바카라사이트 public is getting a valuable return on its research investment with respect to what often masquerades as research when it clearly is not.

I am very grateful to all those who have commented on my article. The discussion raises important and difficult issues that need addressing. I am especially indebted to darris for 바카라사이트 accurate and concise summary of my position.

Did Donald Trump steal documents from 바카라사이트 US government? That should be an answerable question as long as you have an agreed and clear definition of "steal". It should not matter on how you feel about 바카라사이트 matter. If you do not have an agreed concept of truth, any bully can have 바카라사이트ir way and trample on 바카라사이트ir fellow citizens. At 바카라사이트 moment, Judge Eileen Cannon is a threat not only to US security, but to all of us throughout 바카라사이트 world. A world or unreason is a world of ignorance, pestilence, and worse.