PDA

View Full Version : Fake Science - Quadrant Duped



arosar
07-01-2009, 08:45 AM
This is just hilarious!

Current Quadrant editor, Keith Windschuttle, notorious for his thesis (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1286.asp) that historians have fabricated evidence of Aboriginal persecution, has once again hit the headlines. This time, he has fallen for a hoax! He allowed publication of an article written by a scientist who is, according to Crikey, "entirely fictitious and the article is studded with false science, logical leaps, outrageous claims and a mixture of genuine and bogus footnotes".

I don't know if this is available to non-subscribers, but here's the Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090106-How-Quadrant-swallowed-a-giant-hoax-.html) article. The hoaxer, too, even had the balls to write a blog (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/crikey/files/2009/01/diary-of-a-hoax.html)!

The hoax article is still available here (http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/1-2/scare-campaigns-and-science-reporting).

See also today's SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quadrant-falls-victim-to-hoax/2009/01/06/1231004021054.html).

AR

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:49 PM
Current Quadrant editor, Keith Windschuttle, notorious for his thesis (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1286.asp) that historians have fabricated evidence of Aboriginal persecution,
Straw man. He doesn't deny persecution, but the charge of genocide and that many children were stolen for racial reasons. Many of his opponents resort to postmodernist crap, that the genocide is part of the "aboriginal story" so is valid.

Crikey is a leftist rag.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2009, 01:19 PM
Straw man. He doesn't deny persecution, but the charge of genocide and that many children were stolen for racial reasons.

Well, he doesn't deny all persecution, but he certainly denies many claimed incidents thereof. So AR's comment is only a straw man if it is read as claiming that Windschuttle's thesis is that all claims of persecution are fabricated. Actually AR's comment could be read as either that W reckons some claims of persecution are fabricated or that W reckons they all are, but from the link it's clear enough it is the former and there is no "straw man".


Crikey is a leftist rag.

As a reader I find this is more often than not, but not invariably, true. Nonetheless in this instance it has reported on a hoax which has demonstrated that W accepts standards from his writers that he does not accept from his opponents, and fails to independently verify the claimed credentials of his authors. Its reporting of these events has been factual, informative and in the public interest and I cannot see why it was relevant for you to point out its leftist leanings while making no other comment on the hoax.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 02:05 PM
Well, he doesn't deny all persecution, but he certainly denies many claimed incidents thereof.
With ample justification. His critics are often postmodernist, claiming that the factuality is less important than the ethnic story told.


So AR's comment is only a straw man if it is read as claiming that Windschuttle's thesis is that all claims of persecution are fabricated. Actually AR's comment could be read as either that W reckons some claims of persecution are fabricated or that W reckons they all are, but from the link it's clear enough it is the former and there is no "straw man".
Of course it it. W doesn't deny persecution, he denies a campaign of genocide and widespread racism.


As a reader I find this is more often than not, but not invariably, true. Nonetheless in this instance it has reported on a hoax which has demonstrated that W accepts standards from his writers that he does not accept from his opponents, and fails to independently verify the claimed credentials of his authors.
Maybe so, yet there is quite a difference between a lay editor being expected to check every reference provided, and professional historians being slack with their references about a viewpoint that it indoctrinated as fact.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Of course it it. W doesn't deny persecution, he denies a campaign of genocide and widespread racism.

He clearly denies a large portion of all the claimed "persecution" in so doing.


Maybe so, yet there is quite a difference between a lay editor being expected to check every reference provided, and professional historians being slack with their references about a viewpoint that it indoctrinated as fact.

That difference blurs when the person failing in the former context and the person leading the attack in the latter context is one and the same. Especially when he didn't merely accuse the other historians of being slack but insisted their behaviour was deliberate.

When I edited a student magazine several years ago I took the time out, where necessary, to broadly familiarise myself with issues being raised so I could determine whether certain articles were junk. I remember spending many hours reading specialised literature in the debate about the scientific basis or otherwise of astrology so I could decide if one article that was sent in (which discussed aspects of that debate) was publishable or not. If it's good enough for me on the pittance I was being paid back then it ought to be good enough for Windschuttle.