4 ms·

And where exactly does he say that? Or are you just putting words into his mouth? BTW, I know exactly where he's coming from. As a computer nerd I've done my f

And where exactly does he say that? Or are you just putting words into his mouth? BTW, I know exactly where he's coming from. As a computer nerd I've done my fair share of accounting-type work over the years. And when I once downloaded a massive climate data set and looked at it and did some basic analysis on it (it was being used at the time to make some questionable claims about the climate), the first thing that popped into my head was "OMG, they're really cooking the books! Call in the auditors! Call in the law!" As far as I could tell I was looking at either a massive fraud or a major computer screwup; I could go either way here.

kaybe 8y ago
Well then write an email to the authors and ask them about it (maybe not with that tone though). I'm pretty sure you'll get an answer. Edit: Seriously, if you think we made a mistake we want to know about it in detail. Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. It's not very probable, but.. it's not like is has never happened either.
- southern_cross 8y ago
  I didn't need to do that (contact the authors) because as it turned out other people had already done so; basically they just got stonewalled, though. And as I recall one of them was actually a young PhD (or at least a PhD-wannabe), and the response they got back was essentially "If you value your future career in science then you shouldn't go around rocking the boat by asking questions like this!" > Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. Yeah, you make it sound like peer-review and such actually works the way that it's usually claimed to work, which is often just not the case. I've seen enough peer-reviewed junk floating around out there over the years to know that.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    Hm, that does indeed sound concerning. I'd still try for myself though, since tone matters a lot. There is a reason lists like this exist [0]. If you have experience you probably know some of the letters and emails professors get (special and general relativity and quantum anything are prime targets). Honest questions on the other hand get either no response (too busy) or a detailed answer. It's hard to judge without seeing the correspondance. I still believe that in aggregate peer review works, even if it fails once in a while for single cases, especially when the result is as scrutinized and as important as this. Do you have a better idea for making progress and figuring out what reality is really like? [0] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
    - southern_cross 8y ago
      Yeah, I've seen that crackpot list before, and of course most of it is just too funny. But things like that are really no excuse for just blowing off serious questions about current scientific thinking, which may of course potentially point to real problems with that thinking. In other words, you can't just label something "crackpot" primarily because it's convenient to do so. As far as peer review goes, I'm trying to keep an eye on the whole "open peer review" thing, or whatever the proper name for that is. It of course has its own problems, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the current system for several decades now. And I don't think that it's really a matter of "it fails once in a while", but rather that it has problems which may be fairly pervasive. I've seen estimates that as much as 50% of what gets published these days as peer-reviewed science may be basically just fiction in the end, and I might put the percentage higher than that.
bena 8y ago
That's neither here nor there. "Business" is not a field in and of itself. It's an attempt to legitimize his refutation without actually having to put any work into it. If he had just left it at "other fields" then the comment could maybe stand on its own. It's still a bit too vague, but whatever. And even you, you're just here making the claim that you've done "accounting-type" work so that when you later say that you downloaded the data and "did some basic analysis" your conclusion will seem more valid. What analysis? What about the data didn't line up? Saying something and showing something are two different things.
- dpark 8y ago
  He did not assert that "his field" was "business". This is a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

kaybe 8y ago

Well then write an email to the authors and ask them about it (maybe not with that tone though). I'm pretty sure you'll get an answer. Edit: Seriously, if you think we made a mistake we want to know about it in detail. Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. It's not very probable, but.. it's not like is has never happened either.

southern_cross 8y ago
I didn't need to do that (contact the authors) because as it turned out other people had already done so; basically they just got stonewalled, though. And as I recall one of them was actually a young PhD (or at least a PhD-wannabe), and the response they got back was essentially "If you value your future career in science then you shouldn't go around rocking the boat by asking questions like this!" > Just consider that a lot of people independently analyzed the data for the publications, including idealistic students without agenda, who then all made the same mistake. Yeah, you make it sound like peer-review and such actually works the way that it's usually claimed to work, which is often just not the case. I've seen enough peer-reviewed junk floating around out there over the years to know that.
- kaybe 8y ago
  Hm, that does indeed sound concerning. I'd still try for myself though, since tone matters a lot. There is a reason lists like this exist [0]. If you have experience you probably know some of the letters and emails professors get (special and general relativity and quantum anything are prime targets). Honest questions on the other hand get either no response (too busy) or a detailed answer. It's hard to judge without seeing the correspondance. I still believe that in aggregate peer review works, even if it fails once in a while for single cases, especially when the result is as scrutinized and as important as this. Do you have a better idea for making progress and figuring out what reality is really like? [0] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
  - southern_cross 8y ago
    Yeah, I've seen that crackpot list before, and of course most of it is just too funny. But things like that are really no excuse for just blowing off serious questions about current scientific thinking, which may of course potentially point to real problems with that thinking. In other words, you can't just label something "crackpot" primarily because it's convenient to do so. As far as peer review goes, I'm trying to keep an eye on the whole "open peer review" thing, or whatever the proper name for that is. It of course has its own problems, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the current system for several decades now. And I don't think that it's really a matter of "it fails once in a while", but rather that it has problems which may be fairly pervasive. I've seen estimates that as much as 50% of what gets published these days as peer-reviewed science may be basically just fiction in the end, and I might put the percentage higher than that.

bena 8y ago

That's neither here nor there. "Business" is not a field in and of itself. It's an attempt to legitimize his refutation without actually having to put any work into it. If he had just left it at "other fields" then the comment could maybe stand on its own. It's still a bit too vague, but whatever. And even you, you're just here making the claim that you've done "accounting-type" work so that when you later say that you downloaded the data and "did some basic analysis" your conclusion will seem more valid. What analysis? What about the data didn't line up? Saying something and showing something are two different things.

dpark 8y ago
He did not assert that "his field" was "business". This is a misrepresentation of what was actually said.