{"id":19492,"date":"2022-08-11T13:13:27","date_gmt":"2022-08-11T20:13:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=19492"},"modified":"2022-08-11T13:13:27","modified_gmt":"2022-08-11T20:13:27","slug":"the-state-of-so-called-social-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2022\/08\/11\/the-state-of-so-called-social-science\/","title":{"rendered":"The State Of So-Called Social Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

     It\u2019s easy to laugh at some of the bizarre ideas and concepts that come out of academia, but if you want to really understand just how un-academic<\/em> these \u201cacademics<\/em>\u201d can be even when purporting to be more serious than usual, you need to get it straight from the tap of (allegedly) peer-reviewed journal articles. There are fewer good sources for pointing out the more insane ones than the Real Peer Review channel on Twitter. The poor writing, fallacies, and lack of logic is discombobulated<\/a> by them here<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

\n

We were informed in DMs that the article on "objectification" we previously discussed is not "bleeding edge of state of the art" and the actual bleeding edge of objectification research is this work (linked), so let's have a field day https:\/\/t.co\/YSbRBd8AlK<\/a><\/p>\n

\/1 pic.twitter.com\/9EBY8A120E<\/a><\/p>\n

— New Real Peer Review (@RealPeerReview) July 24, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n