I wonder if 97% of scientists agree with this...

What we have all come to expect and love/detest from our employees that ignore us
Post Reply
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

#1 I wonder if 97% of scientists agree with this...

Post by bernomatic »

DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’
As if that headline wouldn't catch your attention. And if you're a male of anything other than "progressive" tendencies you might actually say, "Why not, they blame us for everything else." Might as well admit it, it was proven in a published scientific paper.

However, in this instance you would be in for a surprise, and a good one at that. It turns out that a couple of hoaxers wanting to prove that male bashing in certain scientific circles will get you published no matter how inane your paper is proved their point.

Some of it was written with the help of the Postmodern Generator – “a website coded in the 1990s by Andrew Bulhak featuring an algorithm, based on NYU physicist Alan Sokal’s method of hoaxing a cultural studies journal called Social Text, that returns a different fake postmodern ‘paper’ every time the page is reloaded.”

This paragraph, for example, looks impressive but is literally meaningless:

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).

None of it should have survived more than a moment’s scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication:

Cogent Social Sciences eventually accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category.

They didn’t accept the paper outright, however. Cogent Social Sciences’ Reviewer #2 offered us a few relatively easy fixes to make our paper “better.” We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about “manspreading” (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and “dick-measuring contests.”

No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is “the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear.

The fact that such complete drivel was published in a social science journal, the hoaxers argue, raises serious questions about the value of fields like gender studies and the state of academic publishing generally:
:arrow: full article
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#2 Re: I wonder if 97% of scientists agree with this...

Post by luke strawwalker »

And this is a surprise to... WHOM?

Academia is full of empty headed morons with an ax to grind... Some areas are more prolific in number than others, but ALL are afflicted by them.

Once you can crouch your argument or position behind certain "untouchable" areas like "gender studies" and other such idiotic psuedoscience, you can get away with ANYTHING. Climate change is one of those "untouchable" areas that to even question the validity of conclusions drawn is simply not permissable, and will get you blackballed and your career destroyed.

Once you create such havens behind which ANY position or idea, no matter HOW idiotic, can be protected from scrutiny or disagreement, you create the environment where NOTHING, no matter how ludicrous, can be challenged, and in fact then becomes "dogma" as long as it holds with popular opinion...

That's not science at that point-- it's a RELIGION...

Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
User avatar
Joe Wooten
Space Lieutenant
Space Lieutenant
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed, 06 Apr 16, 13:26 pm

#3 Re: I wonder if 97% of scientists agree with this...

Post by Joe Wooten »

luke strawwalker wrote:That's not science at that point-- it's a RELIGION...

Later! OL J R :)
Yes, a nihilistic secular religion complete with sacraments - Abortion (the highest and most holy), feminism, Environmentalism, and Transgenderism.
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#4 Re: I wonder if 97% of scientists agree with this...

Post by luke strawwalker »

Joe Wooten wrote:
luke strawwalker wrote:That's not science at that point-- it's a RELIGION...

Later! OL J R :)
Yes, a nihilistic secular religion complete with sacraments - Abortion (the highest and most holy), feminism, Environmentalism, and Transgenderism.
yup.... OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
Post Reply