5 ms·
Not necessarily, which is why I've always disliked the term, even apart from how it's used so often as to be meaningless rhetoric. Plenty of people might take "
by danso 8y ago
Not necessarily, which is why I've always disliked the term, even apart from how it's used so often as to be meaningless rhetoric. Plenty of people might take "fake" to mean false, regardless of intent. And I would also argue that "fake news" can also be interpreted to mean that something mundane/previously known is falsely insinuated to be shocking "news" e.g. "Barack Obama discovered to have lived with single white teen mom", which is technically true (his mother was white and living alone at the time of his birth), but the intent of the headline is obviously to imply scandal.
That said, I don't think it's normal for a "software bug" to result in such an egregious error as to require a retraction of the study. I'd like to know why the peer review process failed to detect the problem.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- LamaOfRuin 8y ago>That said, I don't think it's normal for a "software bug" to result in such an egregious error as to require a retraction of the study. I'd like to know why the peer review process failed to detect the problem. Only because most papers never get the work checked at that level. Software bugs causing errors in studies is extremely common. There's a reason a tiny tiny fraction of researchers share their code without kicking and screaming, and it's not because they'll be scooped on their next paper if they do. (I'm slightly jaded here)
- wasdfff 8y agoIn what field? I work in research and people love to share their software and have you cite their tools in your papers. Software has no chance of being popular or vetted enough to become a standard without sharing it.
- yellowbuilding 8y agoThat is one good example, and there are countless more. Most people realize how the existence of “fake news” begs the question of what constitutes “real news”, but it’s become frighteningly apparent that very few acknowledge that trust requires more than mutual responsibility. Most importantly, it requires universal forgiveness and a right to interrogate faith. The acceptance of existing “fake news” is not a good sign.
- bbeonx 8y agoI don't know, I might push back here. While fake news can certainly be interpreted as news that is false, that is not how it is usually used. There is definitely an insinuation, and while the vanilla reading of the definitions of "fake" and "news" don't contain this insinuation, it exists none the less. That being said, as a writer I might not be able to resist pointing out the irony that the paper on fake news was fake news :). I really can't fault the author.
- tdeck 8y agoIt's not just an insinuation, the very definition of the word fake includes dishonesty: /fāk/ adjective 1. not genuine; counterfeit. "fake designer clothing" synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction, lookalike, likeness;
- pmichaud 8y agoI think the answer is that peer review is essentially broken for finding specific technical errors, and that most errors like this are never acknowledged and don’t lead to retractions, even when they are found which they often are not.
- trampi 8y ago> That said, I don't think it's normal for a "software bug" to result in such an egregious error as to require a retraction of the study. I'd like to know why the peer review process failed to detect the problem. A Bug in FMRI Software Could Invalidate 15 Years of Brain Research [1] [1]: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-invalidate-decades-of-brain-research-scientists-discover https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-in...