3 ms·

> Code is a joke, most data is processed using "pipelines", which in reality means some irreproducible mess. You're not wrong, and it's not limited to bioinfor

> Code is a joke, most data is processed using "pipelines", which in reality means some irreproducible mess. You're not wrong, and it's not limited to bioinformatics; Reinhart-Rogoff's findings were reversed when an additional 5 rows were included in a spreadsheet they used to calculate their correlation between GDP growth and debt ratios. And of course, they insist that despite the actual outcome being twice as strong and in the opposite direction, they still support their original position. I wonder if one can get a CS PhD by producing enough retractions. Of course, it won't win you many friends in the academy, and would probably lead to less source code made available. But given the Perl code I've seen published who's termination condition is a divide-by-zero exception, one can argue that peer review in the information age has to include code review.

smartbit 11y ago
Didn't know about the Reinhart-Rogoff controversy [0], interesting! They state that they have been careful not to claim that high debt causes slow growth, but rather that it has an “association” with slow growth. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/reinhart-rogoff-austerity-research-errors_n_3094015.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/reinhart-rogoff-aus...
- linhchi 11y ago
  I read abt this quite a bit, the refutation is attacking a small portion of the data, because that small portion is trendy and hot in politics. Judging academically, the original paper and the refuting paper is a healthy debate, but the dynamic of the society and politics ab-use them to attack a whole school of thought at large (the austrian school: less bailout, less intervention by government, less control over everything) in favor of keynesian school (more bailout, more government spending, more public debt, especially in recession and crisis). Anyway, it remains a controversy, because theoretically one can do what one wants, but once it involves policy and real life matters, it is hard to argue for what method is right and what is wrong, in the presence of so many (ready to b angry) interest groups.
  - Certhas 11y ago
    Excuse me? That single attacked paper was the intellectual blanket for an unprecedented victory march of the Austrian school after the financial crisis and the recession. I agree that from a purely academic point of view this is nothing big to worry about, but this paper played a completely outsized role. And the authors stood by and let things run their course, without any attempt to reign in or moderate the debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt
    - linhchi 11y ago
      Fair enough, but i add that academic life is sad, one has to pursue one's endeavor at one's own cost. However, politicians and the public want too much from us researchers. So sometimes, we do believe that our sweating formulas have life impact, or to fancy, save the world.
titzer 11y ago
Wow. It's scary that 5 rows have such a big impact. What about the next 5? Is this science or sorcery?
- emeryberger 11y ago
  It's worse than just those 5 rows. http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/worki...

smartbit 11y ago

Didn't know about the Reinhart-Rogoff controversy [0], interesting! They state that they have been careful not to claim that high debt causes slow growth, but rather that it has an “association” with slow growth. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/reinhart-rogoff-austerity-research-errors_n_3094015.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/reinhart-rogoff-aus...

linhchi 11y ago
I read abt this quite a bit, the refutation is attacking a small portion of the data, because that small portion is trendy and hot in politics. Judging academically, the original paper and the refuting paper is a healthy debate, but the dynamic of the society and politics ab-use them to attack a whole school of thought at large (the austrian school: less bailout, less intervention by government, less control over everything) in favor of keynesian school (more bailout, more government spending, more public debt, especially in recession and crisis). Anyway, it remains a controversy, because theoretically one can do what one wants, but once it involves policy and real life matters, it is hard to argue for what method is right and what is wrong, in the presence of so many (ready to b angry) interest groups.
- Certhas 11y ago
  Excuse me? That single attacked paper was the intellectual blanket for an unprecedented victory march of the Austrian school after the financial crisis and the recession. I agree that from a purely academic point of view this is nothing big to worry about, but this paper played a completely outsized role. And the authors stood by and let things run their course, without any attempt to reign in or moderate the debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt
  - linhchi 11y ago
    Fair enough, but i add that academic life is sad, one has to pursue one's endeavor at one's own cost. However, politicians and the public want too much from us researchers. So sometimes, we do believe that our sweating formulas have life impact, or to fancy, save the world.

titzer 11y ago

Wow. It's scary that 5 rows have such a big impact. What about the next 5? Is this science or sorcery?

emeryberger 11y ago
It's worse than just those 5 rows. http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/worki...