[SampleMan]

I’m 100% certain that someone who would apply for a grant to determine whether men are sexist is going to find that the data shows that men are sexist.

This is what comes of results oriented studies in the humanities.

Has there ever been a hypothesis in the humanities that has not been supported by the grant funded research? I don’t think so.

Why even do the research (assuming that they actually do). Just write up your assumptions and publish it as fact.

[cripplecreek]

I’m 100% certain that someone who would apply for a grant to determine whether men are sexist is going to find that the data shows that men are sexist.

Probably conducted by a whole herd of big ole guilty women.

[ClearCase_guy]

Why even do the research (assuming that they actually do). Just write up your assumptions and publish it as fact.

In a somewhat similar vein, Tom Wolfe wrote "The Painted Word" about modern art. I believe the point he made was that the stuff on the canvas had ceased to be very important -- it was all about the critics. A critic could "see" things other people did not see. A critic could find "meaning" where there was none. If a critic said you were a mere dauber, then it was over for you. If a critic said you were the next big thing, then you were.

The painting didn't matter -- the reviews were where the action was.
The research doesn't matter -- the published "findings" are what's important.

[xsmommy]

I’m pretty sure the fat bald guy did it. ; )

[FreedomPoster]

>>This is what comes of results oriented studies in the humanities.

AKA “The Voodoo Sciences”.

[Vigilanteman]

I call it the "reverse scientific method":

1. Draw your conclusions.
   
2. Find data which supports them.
   
3. Discard any which does not.
   
4. Present your findings to make it sound sophisticated and reality based.

Follow this formula carefully and in order and you, too, can be a published scholar. But only if your conclusions are supported by the know-it-all crowd in media and academia.