4 ms·

I have some questions about this "sting" that were unanswered in the article. It would be one thing if the academic were paid to have a certain opinion, its is

by n0us 11y ago

I have some questions about this "sting" that were unanswered in the article. It would be one thing if the academic were paid to have a certain opinion, its is another thing entirely to pay an academic to falsify research supporting a viewpoint they already hold. It reads as if the academics were paid to support a thesis with evidence. Once you are at a high enough academic level you should be able to write a paper arguing for and supporting a thesis whether or not you believe in that thesis on a personal level. It's important to sustain debate on all sides of an issue regardless of whether or not all of those sides are politically popular. The great thing about publishing is that it gives other educated people a chance to rebut and question the argument. I also believe funding sources should be kept secret in some cases so that the paper or research can be judged on its own merit rather than judged based on the motivations of the entity funded it.

kijin 11y ago
Given how cleverly the authors tried to evade peer review, the evidence might have been quite flimsy to begin with. Peer review is the primary mechanism by which modern science verifies evidence, especially in fields like climate change where it's often very difficult to replicate another scientist's data. Evasion of peer review is like including an obfuscated blob in a critical part of some security software. It is highly suspicious by definition, and the community has every right to assume that it is malicious unless the author can demonstrate otherwise.
- n0us 11y ago
  Thats why you don't use that blob. I'm not saying that I trust the study, only that I don't see anything wrong with the author accepting money in exchange for writing it. Continuing the analogy, I don't see anything wrong with using or producing an obfuscated blob (in certain situations) but it wouldn't necessarily be wise to blindly trust it.
  - carc 11y ago
    I don't either... assuming the author discloses the sources of funding. How can you rationalize away that part?
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Overextending that analogy: But the issue is the author effectively saying "this project's source code undergoes independent security audits prior to each release" and then being paid to include an un-audited blob. In both cases person is being paid to deceitfully and deliberately abuse the trust placed in him.
rcthompson 11y ago
Your first paragraph is dead wrong. Science is not supposed to be about which side can pay more to "support their thesis with evidence". That would clearly lead to a blatant bias toward collecting evidence that favors the desired outcome. Also, it's not important to sustain every side of every debate in perpetuity. If that was the case, nothing would ever get done. Once there is enough evidence, collected in an unbiased fashion, that one side becomes untenable, the correct action is to put that debate to bed. Your second paragraph is irrelevant. The problem is not publishing this research, the problem is the intentional deceptions about both conflicts of interest and the lack of peer review. Your third paragraph is also dead wrong. Disclosure of all conflicts of interest is critical, not to mention required in order to publish in any respectable scientific journal.
- n0us 11y ago
  1. I said nothing about "what science is supposed to be about" Research costs money. If I chose to fund a study about the positive effects of a coal industry on the lower class it is within my right to do so and in no way excludes someone else from funding a study on the negative effects. 2. Sure, but this is tangential to my comment at best. 3. my belief is not "also dead wrong" Disclosure of conflicts of interest is not the same as disclosure of funding sources in all cases. I'd also like to point out that your comment is an example of what I consider to be the type of poorly thought out middle brow discourse that perfectly characterizes the worst form of discussion on the internet. Unilateral statements like "your wrong" contribute nothing at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 11y ago
> I'd also like to point out that your comment is an example of what I consider to be the type of poorly thought out middle brow discourse that perfectly characterizes the worst form of discussion on the internet. Ok, let us look at what you wrote: > I have some questions about this "sting" that were unanswered in the article. You don't ever ask any questions, and thus this is a rhetorical device to cast doubt on the article. > It would be one thing if the academic were paid to have a certain opinion, its is another thing entirely to pay an academic to falsify research supporting a viewpoint they already hold. It reads as if the academics were paid to support a thesis with evidence. Once you are at a high enough academic level you should be able to write a paper arguing for and supporting a thesis whether or not you believe in that thesis on a personal level. It's important to sustain debate on all sides of an issue regardless of whether or not all of those sides are politically popular. Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing against commercial funding for research or papers. The issue is deliberately concealing funding/independence and deliberately evading peer review. > The great thing about publishing is that it gives other educated people a chance to rebut and question the argument. Not when you deliberately avoid peer review. > I also believe funding sources should be kept secret in some cases so that the paper or research can be judged on its own merit rather than judged based on the motivations of the entity funded it. Ok, what are those cases? Oh right, you were just making a rhetorical point and don't have any actual examples.

by n0us 11y ago

kijin 11y ago

Given how cleverly the authors tried to evade peer review, the evidence might have been quite flimsy to begin with. Peer review is the primary mechanism by which modern science verifies evidence, especially in fields like climate change where it's often very difficult to replicate another scientist's data. Evasion of peer review is like including an obfuscated blob in a critical part of some security software. It is highly suspicious by definition, and the community has every right to assume that it is malicious unless the author can demonstrate otherwise.

n0us 11y ago
Thats why you don't use that blob. I'm not saying that I trust the study, only that I don't see anything wrong with the author accepting money in exchange for writing it. Continuing the analogy, I don't see anything wrong with using or producing an obfuscated blob (in certain situations) but it wouldn't necessarily be wise to blindly trust it.
- carc 11y ago
  I don't either... assuming the author discloses the sources of funding. How can you rationalize away that part?
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Overextending that analogy: But the issue is the author effectively saying "this project's source code undergoes independent security audits prior to each release" and then being paid to include an un-audited blob. In both cases person is being paid to deceitfully and deliberately abuse the trust placed in him.

rcthompson 11y ago

Your first paragraph is dead wrong. Science is not supposed to be about which side can pay more to "support their thesis with evidence". That would clearly lead to a blatant bias toward collecting evidence that favors the desired outcome. Also, it's not important to sustain every side of every debate in perpetuity. If that was the case, nothing would ever get done. Once there is enough evidence, collected in an unbiased fashion, that one side becomes untenable, the correct action is to put that debate to bed. Your second paragraph is irrelevant. The problem is not publishing this research, the problem is the intentional deceptions about both conflicts of interest and the lack of peer review. Your third paragraph is also dead wrong. Disclosure of all conflicts of interest is critical, not to mention required in order to publish in any respectable scientific journal.

n0us 11y ago
1. I said nothing about "what science is supposed to be about" Research costs money. If I chose to fund a study about the positive effects of a coal industry on the lower class it is within my right to do so and in no way excludes someone else from funding a study on the negative effects. 2. Sure, but this is tangential to my comment at best. 3. my belief is not "also dead wrong" Disclosure of conflicts of interest is not the same as disclosure of funding sources in all cases. I'd also like to point out that your comment is an example of what I consider to be the type of poorly thought out middle brow discourse that perfectly characterizes the worst form of discussion on the internet. Unilateral statements like "your wrong" contribute nothing at all.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

shkkmo 11y ago

> I'd also like to point out that your comment is an example of what I consider to be the type of poorly thought out middle brow discourse that perfectly characterizes the worst form of discussion on the internet. Ok, let us look at what you wrote: > I have some questions about this "sting" that were unanswered in the article. You don't ever ask any questions, and thus this is a rhetorical device to cast doubt on the article. > It would be one thing if the academic were paid to have a certain opinion, its is another thing entirely to pay an academic to falsify research supporting a viewpoint they already hold. It reads as if the academics were paid to support a thesis with evidence. Once you are at a high enough academic level you should be able to write a paper arguing for and supporting a thesis whether or not you believe in that thesis on a personal level. It's important to sustain debate on all sides of an issue regardless of whether or not all of those sides are politically popular. Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing against commercial funding for research or papers. The issue is deliberately concealing funding/independence and deliberately evading peer review. > The great thing about publishing is that it gives other educated people a chance to rebut and question the argument. Not when you deliberately avoid peer review. > I also believe funding sources should be kept secret in some cases so that the paper or research can be judged on its own merit rather than judged based on the motivations of the entity funded it. Ok, what are those cases? Oh right, you were just making a rhetorical point and don't have any actual examples.