3 ms·

No, but the post is largely a quote of a blog post (the guy who declared UC Berkeley a failure), which is in turn a followup on a different blog post. I respec

by knzhou 7y ago

No, but the post is largely a quote of a blog post (the guy who declared UC Berkeley a failure), which is in turn a followup on a different blog post. I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. I've looked into all the criticisms of Why We Sleep (which, again, covers hundreds of studies), and there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed, in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. There are simply better targets out there than sleep.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. What you wrote: "Like, this kind of exchange is exactly why academics try to avoid randos from the internet. They tend to seize on one point, declare victory, and refuse to change their minds. And when the academic doesn't grovel in compliance, they declare academia to be a failure." So here you are, a "rando", attacking/dismissing a well respected academic with decades of experience from an well respect university over one point. You are exactly what you claimed to despise. > Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. If that was the case, don't remove that bar and data point. But it was removed for a reason right? Good god, you still don't get it. Our authors ( even silly popsci authors ) and especially our universities are held to high standards. This isn't china where you have little to no standards and can make up anything at universities and everything is okay. Authors and academics are expected to meet standards, this is why we have so much trust in our institutions. Following your logic, why should I or anywhere here trust a "rando" like you over a well respect academic from columbia university? Using your own logic, we should dismiss you outright.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
> there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. I fundamentally disagree. What else is throwing away data that disagrees with your argument?

by knzhou 7y ago

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> I respect Andrew Gelman, but in this case I think he jumped to fit this into a pattern where it doesn't belong. What you wrote: "Like, this kind of exchange is exactly why academics try to avoid randos from the internet. They tend to seize on one point, declare victory, and refuse to change their minds. And when the academic doesn't grovel in compliance, they declare academia to be a failure." So here you are, a "rando", attacking/dismissing a well respected academic with decades of experience from an well respect university over one point. You are exactly what you claimed to despise. > Literally the worst criticism is that one bar of a bar graph is removed in a way that doesn't even change the point of the single sentence referring to it. If that was the case, don't remove that bar and data point. But it was removed for a reason right? Good god, you still don't get it. Our authors ( even silly popsci authors ) and especially our universities are held to high standards. This isn't china where you have little to no standards and can make up anything at universities and everything is okay. Authors and academics are expected to meet standards, this is why we have so much trust in our institutions. Following your logic, why should I or anywhere here trust a "rando" like you over a well respect academic from columbia university? Using your own logic, we should dismiss you outright.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

> there's no p-hacking, there's no fraudulent data, there's no piles of studies retracted, and there's no crisis of replication. I fundamentally disagree. What else is throwing away data that disagrees with your argument?