7 ms·

> You mischaracterize. Fiske is not criticizing "people who pointed out statistical errors" and begins the entire essay by explicitly stating as such: "Our fiel

> You mischaracterize. Fiske is not criticizing "people who pointed out statistical errors" and begins the entire essay by explicitly stating as such: "Our field has always encourages -- required, really -- peer critiques"! > She is criticizing "unfiltered trash-talk [on social media]... [and] online vigilantes [who] are attacking individuals, their research programs, and their careers". Let me quote Gelman regarding the subject of her criticism: > The other thing that’s sad here is how Fiske seems to have felt the need to compromise her own principles here. She deplores “unfiltered trash talk,” “unmoderated attacks” and “adversarial viciousness” and insists on the importance of “editorial oversight and peer review.” According to Fiske, criticisms should be “most often in private with a chance to improve (peer review), or at least in moderated exchanges (curated comments and rebuttals).” And she writes of “scientific standards, ethical norms, and mutual respect.” > But Fiske expresses these views in an unvetted attack in an unmoderated forum with no peer review or opportunity for comments or rebuttals, meanwhile referring to her unnamed adversaries as “methological terrorists.” Sounds like unfiltered trash talk to me. But, then again, I haven’t seen Fiske on the basketball court so I really have no idea what she sounds like when she’s really trash talkin’. > I bring this up not in the spirit of gotcha, but rather to emphasize what a difficult position Fiske is in. She’s seeing her professional world collapsing—not at a personal level, I assume she’ll keep her title as the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Professor of Public Affairs at Princeton University for as long as she wants—but her work and the work of her friends and colleagues is being questioned in a way that no one could’ve imagined ten years ago. It’s scary, and it’s gotta be a lot easier for her to blame some unnamed “terrorists” than to confront the gaps in her own understanding of research methods. > To put it another way, Fiske and her friends and students followed a certain path which has given them fame, fortune, and acclaim. Question the path, and you question the legitimacy of all that came from it. And that can’t be pleasant.

throwawayjava 9y ago
Gelman has forged his own path to "fame, fortune, and acclaim". It's not clear to me that this path has actually improved (this particular branch of) science. In fact, by the sound of it, that path may've been at least as destructive as he claims Fiske et al's was. Which isn't an indict of Gelman, as I hardly intuit anything but positive intentions on his part. I'm less concerned with Fiske vs. Gelman and much more concerned with Jay Van Bavel's observation that either way, science loses. Confining scientific critique to scientific venues seems like a reasonable bulwark against this sort of thing. If it had been Reviewer #3 in a program committee or editorial board, or a well-received letter to the editor, instead of a blog post picked up by thousands of internet warriors with no stats training, perhaps the result could've been refined or thrown out without expelling someone from research. If the feud hadn't been picked up by pop science press, then maybe a bad piece of science could've been questioned without poisoning the well for further inquiry.
- mattmcknight 9y ago
  "Confining scientific critique to scientific venues" Fiske controls the venue and is (mis-)using the "scientific venue" to denounce her critics. She is the one refusing to publish the very critiques you describe. The "scientific venue" has been corrupted. The well has not been "poisoned" for further inquiry, rather the necessity of replication and sensitivity to statistical errors has increased. Science was being done sloppily, and Fiske was both a beneficiary of that and in a role where she could have prevented it.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > The "scientific venue" has been corrupted That's a pretty strong accusation. Do you have any evidence? Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?" I don't think you're wrong about the lack of quality reviewing, but I also think that blogs and Facebook and articles in pop sci news venues are pretty shitty places to address the quality of editorial review. And your post demonstrates why: honest mistakes -- or even complete non-mistakes stemming from gaps in established best practices! -- turn into out-right accusations of full on corruption. The comments on NYT demonstrate the same problem from the other side: lots of gender politics when Gelman wasn't motivated by gender, implicitly or otherwise, but rather by the mass appeal of Cuddy's work. Needless to say, I also think you're massively over-stating the maliciousness of people like Cuddy and Fiske. > Science was being done sloppily, and Fiske was both a beneficiary of that and in a role where she could have prevented it. Simmons seems to agree with me that you're really over-reaching here: "The original study wasn’t particularly egregious," he said. "It was published in 2010 before anyone was thinking about this." There's a huge difference between doing science the way you were trained (but sub-optimally), and outright "corruption". There's also a HUGE difference between noticing a problem and constructively pushing for more rigor within a sub-community, and going after particular people within that community so harshly you destroy their careers. The former is great for science. The latter might possibly by great for improving rigor (I'm pessimistic and think it all comes down to incentives, which Gelman et al don't really do much to change). But equivocating bad methodological/statistical training/practice with unethical and even criminal ("corrupt") behavior? That sort of dishonest fire-and-brimstone talk is just as damaging as a lack of rigor.

throwawayjava 9y ago

Gelman has forged his own path to "fame, fortune, and acclaim". It's not clear to me that this path has actually improved (this particular branch of) science. In fact, by the sound of it, that path may've been at least as destructive as he claims Fiske et al's was. Which isn't an indict of Gelman, as I hardly intuit anything but positive intentions on his part. I'm less concerned with Fiske vs. Gelman and much more concerned with Jay Van Bavel's observation that either way, science loses. Confining scientific critique to scientific venues seems like a reasonable bulwark against this sort of thing. If it had been Reviewer #3 in a program committee or editorial board, or a well-received letter to the editor, instead of a blog post picked up by thousands of internet warriors with no stats training, perhaps the result could've been refined or thrown out without expelling someone from research. If the feud hadn't been picked up by pop science press, then maybe a bad piece of science could've been questioned without poisoning the well for further inquiry.

mattmcknight 9y ago
"Confining scientific critique to scientific venues" Fiske controls the venue and is (mis-)using the "scientific venue" to denounce her critics. She is the one refusing to publish the very critiques you describe. The "scientific venue" has been corrupted. The well has not been "poisoned" for further inquiry, rather the necessity of replication and sensitivity to statistical errors has increased. Science was being done sloppily, and Fiske was both a beneficiary of that and in a role where she could have prevented it.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > The "scientific venue" has been corrupted That's a pretty strong accusation. Do you have any evidence? Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?" I don't think you're wrong about the lack of quality reviewing, but I also think that blogs and Facebook and articles in pop sci news venues are pretty shitty places to address the quality of editorial review. And your post demonstrates why: honest mistakes -- or even complete non-mistakes stemming from gaps in established best practices! -- turn into out-right accusations of full on corruption. The comments on NYT demonstrate the same problem from the other side: lots of gender politics when Gelman wasn't motivated by gender, implicitly or otherwise, but rather by the mass appeal of Cuddy's work. Needless to say, I also think you're massively over-stating the maliciousness of people like Cuddy and Fiske. > Science was being done sloppily, and Fiske was both a beneficiary of that and in a role where she could have prevented it. Simmons seems to agree with me that you're really over-reaching here: "The original study wasn’t particularly egregious," he said. "It was published in 2010 before anyone was thinking about this." There's a huge difference between doing science the way you were trained (but sub-optimally), and outright "corruption". There's also a HUGE difference between noticing a problem and constructively pushing for more rigor within a sub-community, and going after particular people within that community so harshly you destroy their careers. The former is great for science. The latter might possibly by great for improving rigor (I'm pessimistic and think it all comes down to incentives, which Gelman et al don't really do much to change). But equivocating bad methodological/statistical training/practice with unethical and even criminal ("corrupt") behavior? That sort of dishonest fire-and-brimstone talk is just as damaging as a lack of rigor.