So I really don't get the so called hoax with the critical theory journals making the rounds. I'm pretty confident that I could write a paper in either IR theory or political theory that stakes out a claim that I fundamentally disagree with and get it through peer review.
I know the literatures well and I know the writing conventions and I know lots of "tricks of the trade" (not in a sinister sense, just in terms of "here is a good way to frame something", etc.)
But if I do that have I really hoaxed a journal, or have I simply demonstrated my skills at writing both sides of an argument?
If I kept publishing articles where I argued against myself maybe I'd be seen as disingenuous (but all the self-citing might drive up my impact factor). But it is me that is disingenuous not the argument.
Philosophy and social/political theory aren't trying to produce the same kinds of truth claims about the world as the hard sciences or empirical social science. There are cases of fraud in empirical social science where someone has faked the data.
But you can't really fake an argument -- you can construct a bad argument or write something nonsensical. But writing out a position that you don't believe in isn't quite the same thing.
If I were to write libertarian defense of the right of toddlers to own guns using a slick interpretation of Nozick and could get it published in a right leaning political philosophy journal is that a hoax? Is libertarianism as a philosophy some how refuted by me doing that?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
