4 ms·

Just so you know, the basic statistical problem with this type of research was pointed out back in the 60's (http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/06/needed-an-intel

Just so you know, the basic statistical problem with this type of research was pointed out back in the 60's (http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/06/needed-an-intellectual-history-of-research-criticism-in-psychology/ http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/06/needed-an-intellectual-hi...), it's just that nobody listened.

throwawayjava 9y ago
My point is that: 1. failing to have read Meehl's critique doesn't amount to "corruption", 2. that calling people "corrupt" for having failed to read Meehl is not likely to be the most effective or the most civil path toward changing things, and 3. To the extent that discussion of scientific methodology on public forums causes or contributes to (2), that's a bad thing and perhaps suggests a fundamental cost of doing science in this manner.
- conistonwater 9y ago
  I think you're using a different sense of the word "corrupt" from the one in the post you're replying to ("The "scientific venue" has been corrupted."). I know it's easy to lose nuance in internet discussions, but please read the posts above more carefully/charitably. Nothing Cuddy did was corrupt in any sense, only poor science.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    I re-read the comment, and disagree. The preceding sentence is: Fiske controls the venue and is (mis-)using the "scientific venue" to denounce her critics I'm having trouble finding a charitable way to read the claim that someone is misusing a scientific venue. And much more to the point, I doubt even more that the subject of those sentences (or the e.g. tenure/promotion committee of that subject) could be reasonably expected to apply such an abundance of charity.
    - conistonwater 9y ago
      Think "corrupted file", not "corrupt official". The key difference is that there is a primary purpose for their existence (a file stores data, a scientific process produces good and reliable findings), and something can be corrupted (no longer suitable for its purpose) without malice involved. To call an official corrupted, you need to allege malice, to say that a file is corrupted, you only need to show that it's not valid for its purpose. It's not a good choice of a word anyway, you could make exactly the same valid point without any of the ambiguity.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        edit: My defense of my reading isn't necessary; just see OP's sibling post. I interpreted their post correctly.
        conistonwater 9y ago
        Ugh, yeah.
    - mattmcknight 9y ago
      How's this- Fiske publishes a letter critical of Gelman, with no peer review of said letter, in her journal. She then claims her letter is "science" because it is in a scientific journal, while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." In a sense, both pieces are self-published, and she is using the mantle of Science to falsely claim that her self-publishing is superior because of the authority of her position as editor. This is corruption. This is misusing the scientific venue.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." She actually outlines the practices that ought to be singled out as unprofessional and unacceptable in the second to last paragraph, and none of those are mere self-publication. Have you considered the possibility that both sides are wrong? That this is crap science, and that the conduct of certain groups of people rallying against crap science is overzealous to the point of cruelty? Finally, it's also worth noting you've COMPLETELY proven Fiske's point about social media: sure, there are some valid critiques. But there are also people being absolutely vicious to people actually trying to science because of very trivial and obvious misunderstandings (e.g., because they think that APS Observer is a journal). I think to some extent that's a reasonable price for free discourse when things stay online and especially when they're anonymous, but you're calling a real person with a real job on the line corrupt because you made an incorrect assumption (that would've taken you 10 seconds of googling to correct).

throwawayjava 9y ago

My point is that: 1. failing to have read Meehl's critique doesn't amount to "corruption", 2. that calling people "corrupt" for having failed to read Meehl is not likely to be the most effective or the most civil path toward changing things, and 3. To the extent that discussion of scientific methodology on public forums causes or contributes to (2), that's a bad thing and perhaps suggests a fundamental cost of doing science in this manner.

conistonwater 9y ago
I think you're using a different sense of the word "corrupt" from the one in the post you're replying to ("The "scientific venue" has been corrupted."). I know it's easy to lose nuance in internet discussions, but please read the posts above more carefully/charitably. Nothing Cuddy did was corrupt in any sense, only poor science.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I re-read the comment, and disagree. The preceding sentence is: Fiske controls the venue and is (mis-)using the "scientific venue" to denounce her critics I'm having trouble finding a charitable way to read the claim that someone is misusing a scientific venue. And much more to the point, I doubt even more that the subject of those sentences (or the e.g. tenure/promotion committee of that subject) could be reasonably expected to apply such an abundance of charity.
  - conistonwater 9y ago
    Think "corrupted file", not "corrupt official". The key difference is that there is a primary purpose for their existence (a file stores data, a scientific process produces good and reliable findings), and something can be corrupted (no longer suitable for its purpose) without malice involved. To call an official corrupted, you need to allege malice, to say that a file is corrupted, you only need to show that it's not valid for its purpose. It's not a good choice of a word anyway, you could make exactly the same valid point without any of the ambiguity.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      edit: My defense of my reading isn't necessary; just see OP's sibling post. I interpreted their post correctly.
      - conistonwater 9y ago
        Ugh, yeah.
  - mattmcknight 9y ago
    How's this- Fiske publishes a letter critical of Gelman, with no peer review of said letter, in her journal. She then claims her letter is "science" because it is in a scientific journal, while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." In a sense, both pieces are self-published, and she is using the mantle of Science to falsely claim that her self-publishing is superior because of the authority of her position as editor. This is corruption. This is misusing the scientific venue.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > She then claims her letter is "science" Please link to the place where she actually makes this claim. > in her journal Not hers, and not a journal. > while his self-published piece is "methodological terrorism." She actually outlines the practices that ought to be singled out as unprofessional and unacceptable in the second to last paragraph, and none of those are mere self-publication. Have you considered the possibility that both sides are wrong? That this is crap science, and that the conduct of certain groups of people rallying against crap science is overzealous to the point of cruelty? Finally, it's also worth noting you've COMPLETELY proven Fiske's point about social media: sure, there are some valid critiques. But there are also people being absolutely vicious to people actually trying to science because of very trivial and obvious misunderstandings (e.g., because they think that APS Observer is a journal). I think to some extent that's a reasonable price for free discourse when things stay online and especially when they're anonymous, but you're calling a real person with a real job on the line corrupt because you made an incorrect assumption (that would've taken you 10 seconds of googling to correct).