That is an important heuristic (and upvoted), but I don’t think it’s one we should endorse without some pretty substantial caveats. If you deprecate any results that strike you as ideologically tainted, and your criteria for “ideologically tainted” are themselves skewed in one direction or another by identity effects, you can easily end up accepting less accurate information than you would by taking every result in the field at face value.
Agreed. I think your caveat is just a special case: put minimal trust in researchers who seem to have ideological axes to grind, including yourself. (And if you can’t discern when you might be grinding an axe then you’re probably screwed anyway.) (But yeah, I admit it’s a perversion of “researchers” to include meta-researchers.)
That is an important heuristic (and upvoted), but I don’t think it’s one we should endorse without some pretty substantial caveats. If you deprecate any results that strike you as ideologically tainted, and your criteria for “ideologically tainted” are themselves skewed in one direction or another by identity effects, you can easily end up accepting less accurate information than you would by taking every result in the field at face value.
I probably don’t need to give any examples.
Agreed. I think your caveat is just a special case: put minimal trust in researchers who seem to have ideological axes to grind, including yourself. (And if you can’t discern when you might be grinding an axe then you’re probably screwed anyway.) (But yeah, I admit it’s a perversion of “researchers” to include meta-researchers.)