My apologies to Stuart for bringing up his by now ancient misbehavior. I'm not a fan of attacks by Twitter archaeology, but his example was the only one I could recall that was directly posted in the open on Twitter.
I can believe this. For most of my career I considered the term "social science" to be an oxymoron. It was in reality just left-wing advocacy couched in postmodernist mumbo jumbo... a few shining stars like Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and the author of this article being notable exceptions.
My apologies to Stuart for bringing up his by now ancient misbehavior. I'm not a fan of attacks by Twitter archaeology, but his example was the only one I could recall that was directly posted in the open on Twitter.
"Fittingly, Stuart himself is now an independent scholar. (This is too bad because Stuart is a good scientist, cowardice aside.)"
I vehemently disagree; a good scientist would never do anything to denigrate science.
A good scientist believes in gaining the truth and knowledge no matter the cost.
Too much purism. Have you seen the average social scientist? Stuart is easily in top 5% and maybe top 1%.
"Too much purism. Have you seen the average social scientist?"
My comment was in reference to those of the hard sciences.
I can believe this. For most of my career I considered the term "social science" to be an oxymoron. It was in reality just left-wing advocacy couched in postmodernist mumbo jumbo... a few shining stars like Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and the author of this article being notable exceptions.
https://youtu.be/pukU3fmFXmY?si=9hIZZ7DfNW0of_Pb
Check this talk about political bias in academia
You put the last part twice, btw :)
If charging a publication fee is the mark of a low-quality vanity journal, how are page fees any different?
Vanity journal is one with low standards and a price tag, so that someone can just buy a bunch of peer-reviewed publications, or books.