The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.
That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.
This paper should never have been published. Titled, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,” our paper “argues” that “The penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a gender-performative, highly fluid social construct.” As if to prove philosopher David Hume’s claim that there is a deep gap between what is and what ought to be, our should-never-have-been-published paper was published in the open-access (meaning that articles are freely accessible and not behind a paywall), peer-reviewed journal Cogent Social Sciences. (In case the PDF is removed, we’ve archived it.)More.
We had to run this one in the middle of the night… Your local provider may insist on a no Weiner effect in daylight hours.
Okay, fine, UD is family friendly and usually just a relay news station anyway…
But why is “social science” considered a science? If the marchin’, marchin’ hordes for science are struggling for credibility, shouldn’t they start by unloading freeloaders like “social science”? Wanna bet?
See also: Even Michael Shermer thinks social science is politically biased
Seven myths of social psychology
Follow UD News at Twitter!