Blind Faith and Bad Science

In 2017–2018, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose submitted a series of intentionally absurd and satirical academic papers to peer-reviewed journals in fields such as gender studies, cultural studies, and critical theory. Their goal was to test whether ideologically driven journals would publish poor or nonsensical work if it conformed to certain political or social narratives.

Some of the fake papers were accepted and even published before the hoax was exposed. Examples included:

  • A paper arguing that dog parks are “rape-culture training grounds.”

  • A rewritten section of Mein Kampf using feminist language.

  • A paper suggesting that men should be trained like dogs to prevent sexual misconduct.

When the hoax was revealed in October 2018, it sparked major debate about academic rigor, ideological bias, and the state of scholarship in certain fields. It also highlighted a broader issue: the limits of human knowledge and the fallibility of peer review, which are not restricted to the humanities.

In parallel, the replication crisis in science has revealed that a significant proportion of research in psychology, medicine, and other scientific fields cannot be reproduced. Thousands of studies that were once considered reliable have failed replication attempts, and the problem has been so widespread that many journals have had to retract large numbers of articles due to flawed methodology, statistical errors, or falsified data. Retraction databases now track tens of thousands of withdrawn articles, demonstrating that even science—often considered the gold standard of knowledge—is vulnerable to error, bias, and human limitations.

Together, the Grievance Studies Affair and the replication crisis remind us that data, peer review, and publication alone cannot guarantee truth. They highlight the need for philosophical reflection and a foundation in ultimate reality to ground our understanding of truth and knowledge.

Summary: The Limits of Academic Rigor

The Grievance Studies Affair (2017–2018) and the replication crisis have exposed significant flaws in academic and scientific research. In the Grievance Studies Affair, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose submitted absurd, satirical papers to peer-reviewed journals in humanities fields, with seven of 20 accepted, revealing ideological biases in the peer-review process [1]. Similarly, the replication crisis in sciences like psychology and medicine has shown that many published studies cannot be reproduced, with over 10,000 articles retracted due to flawed methods, errors, or fraud [2, 3]. A 2015 study found only 36% of 100 psychology studies were replicable [4]. These issues highlight the fallibility of peer review and the need for greater rigor, transparency, and philosophical reflection to ensure reliable knowledge [5].

References

  1. Mounk, Yascha. "What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia." The Atlantic, October 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/academic-hoax-reveals-deep-problems-humanities/572689/

  2. Baker, Monya. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility." Nature, May 2016. https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

  3. Retraction Watch Database. https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database/

  4. Open Science Collaboration. "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science." Science, August 2015. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

  5. Van Noorden, Richard. "High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight." Nature, June 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05276-3