G Giménez de Castro

Exploring the obscure wavelengths of the solar spectrum.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

O sea, Paraguay fue más equipo que Marruecos frente a Francia, digo yo....

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@RyanWeather Not exactly since 1918. In this city (MdP) we had snow in 1975 (I lived there) and later a couple of times more (I left the city in 1976). In Buenos Aires city (also sea level), it snowed heavily on 9-Jul-2007.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@folha Fake News

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@aschapire Lo decís por la Colonia Hohenau que fundó en Paraguay?

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@algangui Tiwanaku es un portal temporal, debés saberlo. Cuando uno lo atraviesa se da cuenta que ha sido transportado 5 segundos al futuro ... 🤓

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@folha Faltou comentar que a mídia em geral, a @folha em particular, nos entrega uma previsão astrológica diária. Que a @folha a publique na seção F5 de "Entretenimento & Cultura Pop" não diminui sua culpa por divulgar falsidades.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@pablopompo Amo la frase "statistically he should not exist"

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

Lo que me impresiona del primer gol de Messi a Austria es que T. Almada nunca mira hacia atrás para ver dónde está Messi. Lo intuye. Genio.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

Elijo creer: Messi supera a Just Fontaine como máximo goleador en UNA Copa del Mundo (14 goles)

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

Que cagada se mandó Muslera... por Dió!

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@andarin2 @Sravera01 Que comparación!? Pero ya que lo decís y viendo la absoluta falta de respeto al peatón en nuestras ciudades, yo pondría granadas en el piso. 😆

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@pitiklinov Me imagino que también condena a Judas por su participación necesaria. Y porque no a Poncio, que sin su lavada de manos, tampoco habría ocurrido nada. Lo que menos entiendo en esa "muerte asistida" es donde entra la resurrección... 🤪

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@andarin2 @Sravera01 Si, para proteger peatones. Maneje despacio y con cuidado Sr. Eso significa.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

Si no estuviera en Suiza, diría que estoy en Suiza.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@lopezgottig @clarincom @jmedurand La boludez fue haber caido en la tentación de pensar que sustituiria a las personas, porque sería más barato. Creo que aún no hemos visto los costos reales de la IA. Ese dia más de una firma va a quebrar.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

¿Alguien me cuenta si hubo algún cambio de política en X (Twitter) recientemente? Porque desde esta semana mi "Following" se llenó de twits de personas que no sigo, y que no fueron repostados por personas que sigo. O sea, mi "Following" es igual a mi "For you".

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

No aguanto más la hora de que Spielberg's "D Day" sea estrenada y se acabe la onda de noticias sobre UFOs, UAPs y demás mitos modernos.

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

@GerardoMunck Gracias!

[Colin Wright @SwipeWright]

ANNOUNCEMENT: WE’RE SAVING SCIENCE!

We’re often told that science is “self-correcting.”

But that’s not really true.

Science doesn’t correct itself like a thermostat adjusting the temperature in your house. Science is a human institution run by human beings. And human beings are vulnerable to career incentives, groupthink, moral fads, political pressure, and fear.

And when those forces capture academic journals, peer review stops being a filter for bad ideas and starts becoming more of a credentialing system for fashionable nonsense.

This isn’t exactly new.

In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a totally gibberish article in the journal Social Text full of trendy postmodern jargon. His point was simple: if you flatter the ideological commitments of certain academic editors, nonsense can pass as real scholarship.

Two decades later, @ConceptualJames, @HPluckrose , and @peterboghossian pulled off the “grievance studies” hoax, placing over a half dozen absurd papers in peer-reviewed journals. One paper used dog parks to analyze rape culture and queer performativity. Another rewrote parts of Mein Kampf in the language of feminist theory.

The problem wasn’t just that fake papers got published. It was that they were completely indistinguishable from the real thing.

And today, the problem is even worse.

We now have serious SCIENCE journals publishing papers about feminist lesbians marrying brine shrimp. We have disturbing papers that aim to “queer” and sexualize infants. We have scholarship on “lesbian-queer-trans-canine relationalities” and “trans-dog intimacies.”

But while Clown World papers are concerning because it makes a complete mockery of academia, the same broken, ideologically captured system is also publishing research in legitimate science and medical journals that pushes sex and gender pseudoscience, relies on deeply flawed data, and influences policies on the medical transition of children and young adults.

That’s not funny. That affects real people. It affects medicine. It affects law. It affects children.

And when critics try to respond, they often discover there’s no serious mechanism for correction. Submitted Letters to the Editor often go completely ignored. Contrary evidence is rejected without comment. As a result, the best critiques are often relegated to personal blog posts, social media threads, or newspaper op-eds, while the original paper remains in the literature wearing the armor of “peer review.”

That is untenable.

So Kevin McCaffree, editor-in-chief of Theory and Society (@Theory_Society), and I decided to do something about it.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, we announced a first-of-its-kind article type called “Peer Review.”

The idea is simple: publication should be the beginning of academic scrutiny, not the end of it.

A Peer Review article can critique a paper from any scholarly journal. It can address problems with methods, evidence, logic, definitions, theory, or interpretation. But it has to focus on the claims and arguments, not personal attacks.

Submissions are capped at 2,500 words and go through a straightforward merit review instead of endless gatekeeping and ideological screening. We ask just one basic question: Is this critique coherent, serious, reasonable, or even popular enough to deserve scholarly attention?

If yes, it gets published.

And the authors of the original paper get a built-in right of reply, so readers can see the critique and the response in a legitimate academic venue.

That’s how science is supposed to work.

Science becomes self-correcting only when real people build the mechanisms that allow correction to happen.
That’s what we’ve done.

Now it’s time for academics to use it.

Read our announcement on the @WSJ below.
🔗https://t.co/gqkDE7aaDC

[G Giménez de Castro @guiguesp]

Para quien se interesa en etnoastronomía (@algangui !) les dejo unos links a materiales sobre los conocimientos guaraníes, escritos por el Pro. G. Afonso de la UFPR.

https://t.co/yvIpDkBkBk
https://t.co/zbrZoifd5h
https://t.co/ZcyTyldUKu