https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/stonehenge-may-be-dismantled-welsh-stone-circle
This is truly astonishing, with lies and outrageous claims in almost every paragraph, and with endless speculations dressed up as facts. When I first read it, I could hardly credit the fact that this had come from one of the leading academic institutions in the country-- namely University College London.
It's bad enough for evidence manipulation and misinformation to be published and publicised by the local Bluestone Brewery (as happened with the 2018 field report), but it's infinitely worse when the publisher and promoter is a respected academic institution.
God help us all, if this is the level to which academia has sunk. Who wrote it? I think we can guess that all right..........
But what is also deeply depressing is that there are apparently no checks and balances in the system, which allows unmitigated nonsense to get into print without anybody apparently having the knowledge or the editorial power to intervene and stop it.
Aye. Perhaps they have evidence, perhaps they do not.
ReplyDeleteI asked a researcher about a statement in one of the University's other papers (something that was presented as fact but with no apparent research or reference). So this was just an inquiry on what evidence or reference they had to support the statement. No response apart from being “blocked” (by the author) on social media.
Not familiar with university workings so unsure if this is normal these days. In the past, you used to get some sort of response when flagging up a discrepancy. Either way, this sort of behaviour gives fuel to the government's arguments for reform.
A refusal to engage is an acknowledgement of defeat. Shame on him or her!! That is certainly NOT how academics should behave.......
ReplyDeleteThe statements I was looking at appeared to discredit another research project. I don't think it was done on purpose because I'm not sure that the researcher actually did any research. But when a researcher makes statements of that type in a PhD, people tend to think that it's more than just opinion.
ReplyDeleteThat appearance (of a smear) resulted in actual financial losses to at least one third party corporation (collateral financial losses, but not huge). So I can understand, if not agree with, the reluctance to engage. Obviously, all this is very thoroughly documented.
If you put anything into a doctorate thesis you have to expect to defend it in your viva. You never know what the examiners are going to home in on. You may, of course, be lucky and getaway with all sorts of outrageous stuff, if the examiners get preoccupied with some other issue that seems to them to be more interesting or controversial........
ReplyDeleteIn multi-authored articles, there is a pretty fair chance that if you are author number ten all you have done is examine some thin section slides or done some lab analyses, so author number one will be the one who writes the article and should carry the can. Sometimes the "ancillary authors" never even get to see a single draft of the article, let alone the finished product........ but the multi-author system allows the primary author to spread the blame when it suits him......
ReplyDeleteYes, mistakes are an issue. Ironically, this PhD considered ethics in archaeology (on which subject the author now lectures). That's the reason this author's reaction interests me: if authors on that subject can get away with making stuff up, then the entire Department's output, at least in my mind, becomes unreliable.
ReplyDelete