On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, and advancing human knowledge, it gives me great ironic pleasure to link to this press release which will lead you to the amazing work of Carey, Rushing, et. al. Reading it may lead to “…more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”
“The root of this paradigm comes from the era of Victorian Imperialism in which manly vigor and scientific discovery provided the dominant way of both understanding and dominating foreign spaces,” Rushing said. “This results in a total lack of consideration of alternative ways of understanding glacial ice, which is especially troubling in the current age of rapid melt.”
Well there you go…
If this is parody, it’s very good parody. It keeps one just on that edge of “they can’t possibly be serious - can they?”
From the cite -
Less frigidity leads to more STDs - makes sense to me.
If a glacier melts and floods your hut without your permission is that like climate change rape or something?
Maybe when a glacier falls apart, there’s a piece of ice for everyone.
It was published in a journal called Progress in Human Geography. The current issue also gives us:
Previous issues give us:
History and philosophy of geography II: The future history of the geographical propaedeutic?
I’m familiar with hoax papers and hoax abstracts, where actual professors have written a bunch of pure nonsense and gotten it published in academic journals or at conferences. Is it possible that there could be an entire hoax journal?
“Fanny Bullock Workman”?
Seems to be a legit academic article, but I would lost my paycheck on that bar bet. It’s just such an Onionesque parody of the worst of academic nonsense.
Serious (non-mocking) review of article
Link directly to Journal Listing
(I don’t think this topic will ever generate much if moved to GD or the Pit, so excuse a bit of arguing here rather than a new thread…)
Hereis a bit of Carey’s defense:
Suppose I publish a paper the main thesis of which is that the study of glaciers should inform our thinking on the Second Amendment. Brouhaha results. Then I claim that “the rhetoric around ice tells us a great deal about what people think of science and the NRA”. No, it does not.
Without reading the article, I’ll opine that the authors could use to learn the maxim that correlation does not equal causation.
Do you really not get it? He’s saying the fact that such a parody got such wide attention shows how we view these topics. This is just a bit of absurdity, yet people were arguing whether it was real and making real news articles about it.
It’s a nice social experiment.