The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

[Deleted]

Manspreading — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide — is akin to raping the empty space around him.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

That this hoax passed off as a genuine study says everything you need to know about gender studies. Pathetic garbage.

[HumbleDuck]

At best they're pseudosciences. They don't have true experiments, for one. Their theories are a lot less empirical, objective, and are harder to falsify.

I had an extensive discussion on this very subject in another thread, I don't feel like going as indebt, but in short, social sciences are based on logical structures which should be verified by observations, these two are enough to make them as much of a science as physics. How you feel about them is irrelevant, that's the beauty of science.

[Grimbold21]

One should usually be suspicious of anyone who rants about how everything is a social construct.

[Kraenen]

I had an extensive discussion on this very subject in another thread, I don't feel like going as indebt, but in short, social sciences are based on logical structures which should be verified by observations, these two are enough to make them as much of a science as physics. How you feel about them is irrelevant, that's the beauty of science.

That's odd because I never said anything about my feelings about social sciences.

Logical structures verified by observations are fine, but not having controlled, true experiments means they will never be as much of a science as physics.

[Garnier Fructis]

So they tried to send it to a whole bunch of these little 'social studies' journals and one of them decided to publish it while the rest rejected and ignored it.

To put some perspective on that, it says more about the reviewer of that journal than about social studies as a whole.

I think one of the main reasons people do these joke articles is precisely to weed out predatory and substandard journals. Because if a journal accepts a dumb hoax, then it's a warning to all the other researchers to avoid that journal like the plague.

[HumbleDuck]

That's odd because I never said anything about my feelings about social sciences.

Logical structures verified by observations are fine, but not having controlled, true experiments means they will never be as much of a science as physics.

Experiments can have varying degrees of control, that doesn't make the theory any less scientific.
If we take your approach physics has been a pseudoscience since the 30s.
Actually if we verify theories only via "true experiments" all sciences are pseudoscience.

[Zogarth]

Just on the topic of social constructs: why do we assume that if something is a social construct that therefore it by definition is not physically/objectively real?

We don't? According the Constructivism (Constructivism (philosophy of education), everything is a social construct. It has more to do with how something is observed and realizing that it is created in our minds based on our understanding of it. As everything is social constructs, it may be real, or it may not be. If I tell you some bullshit story, and you believe it, the story becomes true to you. That story is then a "social construct" that you believe exists, despite it being nonsense.

It is just a philosophy on how to create knowledge, and it is complicated as fuck to talk about. In Denmark I have had a lot of education on the subject in University on how to create good papers. And shit is still complicated and hard to understand.

At best they're pseudosciences. They don't have true experiments, for one. Their theories are a lot less empirical, objective, and are harder to falsify.

Why in order to ensure "validity", transparency in all methods, choices, deductions etc. Trying to find something objective in many social sciences, but also theories around strategy and economy etc., is pretty much impossible. But yeah, this paper in question is just bullshit with no validity or anything. It is pure conjecture and subjective conclusions based on their own preconceptions.

[Kraenen]

Experiments can have varying degrees of control, that doesn't make the theory any less scientific.
If we take your approach physics has been pseudoscience since the 30s.
Actually if we verify theories only via "true experiments" all sciences are pseudoscience.

It actually does, by definition, make a field less scientific if it can't produce true experiments. Another key element is being able to falsify one's theories. Another being the predictability and replicability of what one is studying. Social science has a much harder time with these things. Keep in mind I don't think psychology is not-science, just that it's in an awkward place that really can only be described as pseudoscience.

If you're putting true experiments in quotes it makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. In chemistry, for example, you have very basic experiments with controls on variables that you could never dream of in something like sociology/psychology.

[Forogil]

True, it's more of a calling out of the specific journal that agreed to publish them (and the one that rejected them but recommended the journal that accepted) and the process by which that journal functions and accepts papers than a critique of journals as a whole. Still funny to read though

The journal that rejected them, but recommended the other journal is an interesting part of this - and I don't think we should let them off that easily.

It seems to be a "serious publishers" having a sideline as a vanity press for "scholars" (or even if not directly involved at least getting some fee for referral); an idea already seen in Foucaults pendulum; and I am sure there are more examples of this.

[Kraenen]

We don't? According the Constructivism (Constructivism (philosophy of education), everything is a social construct. It has more to do with how something is observed and realizing that it is created in our minds based on our understanding of it. As everything is social constructs, it may be real, or it may not be. If I tell you some bullshit story, and you believe it, the story becomes true to you. That story is then a "social construct" that you believe exists, despite it being nonsense.

It is just a philosophy on how to create knowledge, and it is complicated as fuck to talk about. In Denmark I have had a lot of education on the subject in University on how to create good papers. And shit is still complicated and hard to understand.

I think I'm on board with all this, I just get the feeling that when people yell "it's just a social construct" the implication is that the concept you're talking about was merely made from society's arbitrary whims and not based on some kind of reality.

[Moralgy]

As I said earlier, I haven't found them ranked (on Impact, Eigenfactor or SCImago). It could be because they are a very new journal of course, rankings are always lagging very much for journals. Or it could be because it's crappy journal that only exists to boost citations for another journal.

I would go with a newish journal that ends up just accepting anything that is formatted right. There is no way this paper could have made it through any bit of peer review.

[Zogarth]

It actually does, by definition, make a field less scientific if it can't produce true experiments. Another key element is being able to falsify one's theories. Another being the predictability and replicability of what one is studying. Social science has a much harder time with these things. Keep in mind I don't think psychology is not-science, just that it's in an awkward place that really can only be described as pseudoscience.

If you're putting true experiments in quotes it makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. In chemistry, for example, you have very basic experiments with controls on variables that you could never dream of in something like sociology/psychology.

It does not make it less scientific, it makes it less objective. Something like theories around leadership and strategy is pretty much impossible to find objective truths, as there is too many variables, and that humans are complicated creatures. What may be viewed as "right" today, may not work for shit in a couple of years. Physics often has a right answer for something, while psychology, economical, and social science may have several, of not dozens of explanations to the same issue. Why it is important to disclose that what you are saying is not the objective truth, but your subjective conclusions.

I think I'm on board with all this, I just get the feeling that when people yell "it's just a social construct" the implication is that the concept you're talking about was merely made from society's arbitrary whims and not based on some kind of reality.

Because people speak about things they have no idea about, or are just stupid. A bad scientist within the paradigm of constructivism, is one that is not ready to have his/her preconception challenged and be ready to change it.

[HumbleDuck]

It actually does, by definition, make a field less scientific if it can't produce true experiments. Another key element is being able to falsify one's theories. Another being the predictability and replicability of what one is studying. Social science has a much harder time with these things. Keep in mind I don't think psychology is not-science, just that it's in an awkward place that really can only be described as pseudoscience.

If you're putting true experiments in quotes it makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. In chemistry, for example, you have very basic experiments with controls on variables that you could never dream of in something like sociology/psychology.

I put true experiments in quotation marks because anyone who has studied any branch of science beyond highschool level knows it's a myth.
You can only have degrees of control in an experiment, which is ok. By your definition quantum Mechanics is less scientific than Newtonian Mechanics, which is obviously false. They are exactly the same. They are scientific theories.

[Kraenen]

It does not make it less scientific, it makes it less objective. Something like theories around leadership and strategy is pretty much impossible to find objective truths, as there is too many variables, and that humans are complicated creatures. What may be viewed as "right" today, may not work for shit in a couple of years. Physics often has a right answer for something, while psychology, economical, and social science may have several, of not dozens of explanations to the same issue. Why it is important to disclose that what you are saying is not the objective truth, but your subjective conclusions.


Because people speak about things they have no idea about, or are just stupid. A bad scientist within the paradigm of constructivism, is one that is not ready to have his/her preconception challenged and be ready to change it.

It might clear this up if I just say that the study of psychology, economics or leadership and strategy are just fine and can give us great insights. We just can't classify them as scientific fields of inquiry.

[Celista]

I think a lot of people are missing the whole "fake paper intentionally written to be garbage" part

Nah I caught that.

[Kraenen]

I put true experiments in quotation marks because anyone who has studied any branch of science beyond highschool level knows it's a myth.
You can only have degrees of control in an experiment, which is ok. By your definition quantum Mechanics is less scientific than Newtonian Mechanics, which is obviously false. They are exactly the same. They are scientific theories.

Why is that obviously false? If quantum physics has less of the fundamental qualities of science then why not?

Your argument is starting to seem a bit like "they are both exactly the same since they are science theories, and therefore social science which studies things is also science" - why are they science theories? I'm probably having some trouble understanding why it is you think psychology is as much of a science as physics, could you clarify this?

[Forogil]

Experiments can have varying degrees of control, that doesn't make the theory any less scientific.
If we take your approach physics has been a pseudoscience since the 30s.

Physics have produced lots of experimental results and verified theories since the 1930s.

There have been some theories without experimental verification (string theory - and some deride it for that) - and there are some theories there we cannot make controlled experiments in the normal way (e.g. climate science, geology, cosmology - and evolution of stars) - but as long as we can make predictions based on the theories and the predictions agree with observations it is ok.

Actually if we verify theories only via "true experiments" all sciences are pseudoscience.

Wrong. However, that doesn't mean that "true experiments" is all there is to science.

[Zogarth]

It might clear this up if I just say that the study of psychology, economics or leadership and strategy are just fine and can give us great insights. We just can't classify them as scientific fields of inquiry.

Well that just depends on the definition of science. What you seem to want is analytical science within the paradigm of realism, which aims to make generalized "truths" and objective facts. This is fine if we are talking about physics, math and chemistry, but if it deals with people, society, businesses etc., it more often than not becomes impossible to find any truths. Science in my view is research into bettering the understanding of a certain subject. Being scientific is having a deliberate approach and methodology aiming to create new knowledge. In all subjects it should be tried to base the conclusions on empirical data, and for the most part it is. But saying "Workers are more productive when happy" and "This is how to make your workers more happy" is not the same thing. An analytical approach may lead you to the first conclusion, but is useless when trying to actually make the workers more happy, as a single conclusion will not possibly be reached. You will instead try to find out what makes the most workers happy, and make a conclusion based on that, determine trends etc. But no one will know if this is the "truth" or if the same conclusions would apply at another company with different workers.

[HumbleDuck]

Why is that obviously false? If quantum physics has less of the fundamental qualities of science then why not?

Your argument is starting to seem a bit like "they are both exactly the same since they are science theories, and therefore social science which studies things is also science" - why are they science theories? I'm probably having some trouble understanding why it is you think psychology is as much of a science as physics, could you clarify this?

Because there is no degree to science, something is either scientific or not.

[Kraenen]

Well that just depends on the definition of science. What you seem to want is analytical science within the paradigm of realism, which aims to make generalized "truths" and objective facts. This is fine if we are talking about physics, math and chemistry, but if it deals with people, society, businesses etc., it more often than not becomes impossible to find any truths. Science in my view is research into bettering the understanding of a certain subject. Being scientific is having a deliberate approach and methodology aiming to create new knowledge. In all subjects it should be tried to base the conclusions on empirical data, and for the most part it is. But saying "Workers are more productive when happy" and "This is how to make your workers more happy" is not the same thing. An analytical approach may lead you to the first conclusion, but is useless when trying to actually make the workers more happy, as a single conclusion will not possibly be reached. You will instead try to find out what makes the most workers happy, and make a conclusion based on that, determine trends etc. But no one will know if this is the "truth" or if the same conclusions would apply at another company with different workers.

What I've touched on is typically what people view as science and is in line with the history and philosophy of science. The bold really just underscores a core reason why social science isn't real science. And that's perfectly fine, because trying to understand worker productivity or something like that is a valid and important topic to research.

It would water down the meaning so much if science were just a research into the better understanding of something. I don't think you've thought this through - your view implies there is some method of researching a subject, yet you haven't detailed what this method is. My answer would be the scientific method, as I've described it briefly.