38
0当学者们拒绝那些自17世纪以来一直支撑着科学发展的可验证方法时，我们应当警觉。当然，艺术和人文学科的学术探索无需遵循科学标准，在这些领域中与科学相关的讨论也不一定要经受严格的检验。然而，当研究进入社会科学领域时，就需要更加谨慎的关注。由于本文讨论的学者们显然认为自己是社会科学家，因此对他们的研究进行科学审查和逻辑分析是完全合理的。本文简要描述了当代的一些研究和研究范式，这些研究特点是：不必要的新词创造、浮夸的术语、模糊的思维，以及在已被充分开垦的领域中声称发现新领域却缺乏令人信服的论证。
Our interest should always be aroused when scholars reject the testable approaches that have underwritten scientific development since the seventeenth century. Academic excursions in the arts and humanities need not adhere to scientific benchmarks, of course, and discussions relevant to science that are presented there need not always be subject to rigorous examination. When investigations move into social-science territory, however, more focused attention is called for. Since the scholars discussed in this paper clearly think of themselves as social scientists, it is quite legitimate to subject their investigations to scientific scrutiny and logical analysis. This article briefly describes contemporary investigations and research paradigms characterized by unnecessary neologisms, flatulent jargon, fuzzy thinking, and unconvincing arguments about the discovery of new territory in well-ploughed ground.
文献原文：Edwards, J. (2022). Deconstructivism, postmodernism and their offspring: Disorders of our time. Sociolinguistica, 36(1–2), 55–68. doi.org
AI主播：NotebookLM
文本翻译：Claude 3.5 Sonnet
