Joe Rogan Experience #1191 - Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN commenters recommend it as an entertaining account of how easily fake papers get published and of problems in academic peer review.
What it is
Joe Rogan interviews Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, who describe their hoax papers submitted to academic journals in grievance studies. The conversation runs about two hours and covers academic publishing, ideology and victimhood culture.
Recommended by 2 HN commenters across 2 different months, 2018 to 2019.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec geomark · 2019-02 · on “Jussie Smollett Story Shows Rise of Victimhood Culture”
The term "competitive victimhood" came to my attention after watching the Joe Rogan interview of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay who pranked academic journals with research papers based on ridiculous premises. A must watch IMO [this video]
Strong rec geomark · 2019-11 · on “Science Vigilante Calls Out Bogus Results in Prestigious Journals”
If you have not watched Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay on the Joe Rogan show you should. Very entertaining and shows how ridiculous these publications are. [this video]
Recommends bartread · 2019-02 · on “We need to talk about systematic fraud”
> But does that justify what they did? Yes, it does. These journals are an absolute joke, make a mockery of any serious attempt to advance knowledge and understanding, and deserve to be pilloried. Their standards of rigour and review are shockingly poor and as such they do not provide a suitable vehicle for the publication of genuine research, or for measured consideration of the content they do publish. Just this week I ran across this, where a couple of the academics concerned were interviewed by Joe Rogan late last year: [this video] Fascinating, horrifying, and entertaining in equal measure. For more background, there's also this on wikipedia: [LINK]
Cites Cypher · 2018-11 · on “Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C [pdf]”
It's a 3 page document that makes a number of false assumptions. They extrapolate bitcoin to having 300 billion transactions and means no lightening or L2 solution and the block size would be 3gigs. Nor do they even factor in the halving. Wasn't even researched properly, just utter nonsense for the papers. And Joe Rogan was showing how easy it is to publish fake papers in journals. [this video] here is the paper by the way behind a shitty paywall. [LINK]
Cites bartread · 2019-04 · on “Much of the “science” used in design is bullshit (2014)”
> Absolutely terrifying. Indeed. We seem to be increasingly awash with evidence that the standards of rigour in academic journals across a number of fields are... quite poor. Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose set out to demonstrate this in the field of grievance studies by submitting and, in some cases, successfully publishing a series of fake papers: [this video] I mean, in some sense this is highly entertaining for the rest of us, but it is also utterly horrifying.