Just to demonstrate that the standards for academic research are still politically biased, a couple of writers had their hoax paper titled “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” published recently in Cogent Social Science.
Hiding its obvious incoherence with an abundance of key phrases so popular on the left, the authors appeared to have sailed right through to publication without one reviewer or editor questioning the relevancy to the work to science.
Is that a conceptual penis in your pocket or do you have penis envy?
just like glowbull warming papers.
Read the whole thing on the site (peer reviewed) that published it.
For a submission fee of US $650.
Which ain’t the point at all.
If you don’t know how social studies publishing works today, you won’t tomorrow. And it still won’t make any difference about damn all.
The two guys running the hoax had a fine time ‘outing’ the publisher. For their submission. You better have a better than Twitter vocabulary if you want to ride along.
But perhaps to coin a phrase relating to new age peer reviewed social sciences, Fuckery in, Fuckery out. The imprimatur of relevance can be had for a few hundred bucks and the tossing about of verbiage far removed from the conveyance of meaning.
It may be phony, but 97% of scientists approved it.
Shows you how utterly meaningless it is when liberals scream about a “consensus of scientists.”
Hilarious!
For the record, Zonga posted this item in the bullpen some time in the last 24 hours (it’s already rolled off the “latest four” list).
Dicks cause global warming… Settled science!!!
I think I just got the new name for my punk band:
“Conceptual Penis”
Haha, it’s like some papers I read from students. They are supposed to write an essay about some article they have them read. Sometimes I read so many essays that sound the same, that I will read something like this a second or third time thinking, “I’m missing what their point is supposed to be”. Well, by golly, they don’t have a point! They are just bullshitting trying to get a good score. Sorry, bub!
So if a penis is conceptual does that mean it doesn’t exist except as a concept in some sociologists mind? This is why I hate sociology because they think of everything as a construct or as a concept. To paraphrase Rene’ Descarte, “I think I have a penis therefore I really do have a penis, at least I think I do.”
@geoff the aardvark – IP therefore IM
I can almost hear 2 feminazis arguing about whose conceptual penis is bigger – seems to be coming from the bay area…
So……if the penis is a merely socialized concept, can there be rape? After all, it’s only a social concept, and not a real penis. Cogito ergo sum, no penis, no penetration, no rape.