That Term “Witch Hunt,” I Do Not Think…
Shorter Christian Smith: “If academic freedom means anything, it’s that published work should be completely beyond criticism, even when a researcher draws inferences from data that the data plainly cannot support and writes popular articles further defending these unsupportable inferences. Why won’t his hardcore leftist critics, like known Trotskyite Walter Olson, leave him allooooone?”
“punished work”?
I think that was a Freudian slip.
In the conservative’s world, you cannot ever criticize anything that they agree with, regardless of how poorly sourced or researched, or you are just a bigot unfairly persecuting the brave and righteous conservatives.
They keep forgetting that its our freedom of speech to point out how stupid their speech his.
For all their chest-thumping about their manliness and how badass they are compared to effete, wimply liberal men; conservative men are ceratainly an emotionally sensitive lot.
Fragile flowers who wither at the least slight or mildest aspersion.
Yeah, but don’t look at them wrong, or they’ll use their 2nd Amendment rights by pulling out their Glock and putting a few “Freedom Pellet’s” in your cranium.
Or, more likely, their own asses.
And it’s always a Glock, too. Simple construction, no true safety, just a double trigger. That way, they won’t have to think before shooting.
Well, at least he hadn’t received substantial grant money from a group which would have wanted to reach his conclusion.
Or perhaps he did.
But Christian Smith says that his research is beyond reproach, so I refuse to believe that he had been funded by any group with a vested interest in the outcome he reached.
So, that $695,000 from the Witherspoon Institute is what, chopped liver?
Mere pocket change. Beer money at best.
Dude, I want to party with you.
Mitt comments here?
a) Mitt does not drink beer.
b) Mitt is also a cheapskate, so if he did spend that $695k on beer, no one else would get any.
Or he would sell it to them at a markup.
“Do Mormons drink beer?” is the original clown question, bro.
A mere bag of shells.
Heaven forbid that anyone should respond to a scientific paper by critiquing its methodology.
“Faith” is the only accepted methodology.
Have you never heard of peer rubber stamping.
Peer review as understood by JenBon Lumpyhead?
Oh, man, that’s funny.
“Not peer reviewed? Why, it has a bibliography, and someone mentioned it on Wikipedia.”
That is a very special exchange right there.
That guy so “owned” you. Why would you possibly want to remind anyone of that humiliating exchange?
I am unable to feel shame.
That is hilarious. I wish I’d seen that when it was originally published.
Shorter Christian Smith: “Who would use a study like this to advance politics, this just proves everything I know about all those filthy left-wingers!”
Just like they did in Salem and Cordoba!
Nobody expects the Greyhound Inquisition!
Our chief weapons are Kongs, electric rabbits and an almost fanantical devotion to the Dog Whisperer.
Academic freedom, like freedom of speech, allows you to say whatever you want. It does not, however, protect you from criticism in the first case or consequences in the second.
I’m so sick of people who think that their rights come with no responsibilities. And if you can’t take some criticism, well, grow a thicker skin or get out of academia. Sheesh.
Actually, no. Academic freedom means the right to carry out credible, methodologically-sound [by whatever criteria your discipline uses] research, and to teach within the bounds of disciplinary disagreement by whatever means you see fit, without being fired. Talking sh*t isn’t covered. That comes under wingnut welfare.
Exactly. Talking shit is grounds for dismissal and in the context of research and publications it is called academic fraud.
You’re an idiot.
I’m with you.
Everybody here knows that parents have absolutely no influence on the children growing up.
Did you forget which post you are trying to troll, Jennie? Or did you just start drinking earlier than usual?
No, it’s the right post. It’s stupid, but it’s the right post.
Cracker, please.
I shudder to think what yours must have been like.
Are you trying to insult your parent’s intelligence?
I think he’s trying to save their reputation.
It’s stupid
“It’s” must now be a pronoun.
Smith was Regnerus’ doctoral advisor but, interestingly enough, has disowned him, at least for the purposes of the Chronicle. Given the recent serial unpleasantness there, there appear to be some editorial shenanigans.
Not that anyone is going to still be reading this old post, but if they do, an internal audit by the publisher of Regnerus’ “study” has called it — literally — “bullshit”
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255