Honest question: Do any of you really believe that she saw three men arrested on minor warrants in the maternity ward on the same night?
And if not, do any of you consider this type of misrepresentation to be trivial and immaterial?
The anonymous (2014-2015) Goffman critique
-
And we're back to the core problem here: People who know the world she describes see immediately that she's full of sh!t, the same way we know that Venkatesh is full of sh!t. But because she and SV are good writers, and because SJWs want to believe the kind of stories they tell, the experts calling the fraud out get ignored.
-
And while PNC is the patron saint of SJMR, his repeated demonstration of not knowing anything about what he's critiquing also disqualifies his empty claims.
Phil may be a tool, but he is certainly qualified to critique Goffman's fraudulent survey results. It's absurd of you to say otherwise.
-
I'm not interested in "assessing ethnographic work". I'm interested in research fraud, in the fact that Goffman has made up a whole bunch of implausible and unbelievable nonsense -- obvious nonsense that cannot be verified, but that does ring bells for certain gullible audiences -- and made a career from her fraud. One hardly needs to be an ethnographer to understand any of that.
-
Her work was ethnographic, so if you want to make accusations of "fraud" it has to be made on the evidentiary basis of ethnography. That's simple. You're making the claims of "plenty of people" have claimed with their names attached that she committed fraud, yet you haven't provided a single name.
I'm also curious what your standard for "obvious nonsense" is. Because you seem to be the only one for whom it's obvious. Lubet's "experts" said she was talking about things they didn't know to be common. That's a far cry from claiming they're "bogus" but I shouldn't expect you to understand that difference.
You say you want to focus on the merits of the claims, not "ad hominem" (while misusing that word), but don't seem to engage on the ideas when you're shown to be talking out of your ass.
-
Anybody in LE or criminal defense or hospital administration who reads that book will immediately recognize that various stories AG tells that touch on their areas of expertise -- stories that are first person accounts of what she witnessed, so this isn't some dispute about ethnographic "methods" -- are wildly improbable.
Several people tried to verify those stories, including people very sympathetic to AG (Singal, GLK) and got nowhere. AG's own response to the email provides zero verification, although it does out all her primary informants and their location, so her claims that she can't disclose anything because of confidentiality concerns are transparently bogus. But people love her story and still want to believe it so we get this constant nonsensical defense.
The book is a fraud.