É«ºÐÖ±²¥

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

Good grief. I can only thank the 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 the writers were immune from criticism because they had a privileged 'onto-epistemological position'? Is the 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, other than perhaps the career trajectories of the authors, I wonder if there is a deeper problem than simply peer review. The case for standpoint-free, objective social science as the way to counter fake news, seems like a sensible idea. Yet, history would suggest that many of the established theories 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 the quality of academic publications, I think accepting and making one's standpoint offers the reader a clearer way to evaluate the work being reviewed. Hence, rather than dismissing standpoint theory, 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 their openness and the strength with which they 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 the article seem to be adopting a standpoint that is rooted in their personal identities and political commitments that is far less open to argument and correction: any attempt to question their conclusions must only be an unwarranted personal attack aimed at their strongly-held beliefs, probably even personally or politically motivated. The test for me would be -- is there anything at all that the authors would accept that would invalidate their conclusions?

Couldn't agree more with Darris. I may feel the 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 the 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 these in diaries and or perhaps even a Journal of Personal Opinion. Of themselves, such writings provide useful data as a reflection of the 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 whether or not a set of clearly identified and agreed criteria have been applied to the collection of information, its synthesis and process of interpretation. One such basic criterion could be applied as a minimum standard is whether or not the author is able to satisfy a standard of reliability - in other words given the same data (however you define it - and here are rues around that) would the overwhelming majority of humanity come to the same interpretation and subsequent conclusion. Upon such things societies grow and exist relatively harmoniously. This doesn't mean that the majority are always correct in their 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 the methods there can only be (at best) minimal validity. If the opinions are focused solely through a lens of identity and/or political ideology they are likely to be characterised as being unreliable and therefore of dubious validity - but how can we be sure? Kahneman and Tversky's work on the biases and heuristics of the 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 the preverbal headless chicken. The value in research is it should seek to answer a question and there 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 the activity is clearly something else and should be identified for clarity, honesty and integrity (it's ok ato ask what should the question be - this too can have an acceptable methodology). Some authors may believe passionately what they are writing is true (indeed some openly identify as activists) but in the court of informed public scrutiny it may not stack up in the 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 the self-serving echo chamber from which it comes. Other areas, sadly many of which would be described by the many hues of post modernism, provide opinion dressed up, sadly, in the 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 the 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 the accurate and concise summary of my position.

Did Donald Trump steal documents from the 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 the matter. If you do not have an agreed concept of truth, any bully can have their way and trample on their fellow citizens. At the moment, Judge Eileen Cannon is a threat not only to US security, but to all of us throughout the world. A world or unreason is a world of ignorance, pestilence, and worse.