4 ms·

You make it sound like it is uncommon for a think tank to publish research that helps its backers and allies. “The example of the day” (provided by NPR?) is jus

You make it sound like it is uncommon for a think tank to publish research that helps its backers and allies. “The example of the day” (provided by NPR?) is just one small feature of a much larger landscape.

jacobolus 6y ago
No, it’s not uncommon at all. There is a whole industry of billionaire-funded GOP “think tanks” whose business is laundering bullshit. It still reflects very poorly on Stanford though.
- guscost 6y ago
  You really think that this phenomenon only happens on one side of the political aisle? I can’t relate to any worldview where that situation is possible.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    It’s not really comparable. The difference is that scholars who aren’t GOP operatives generally live in what one senior Bush-administration official derisively called the “reality-based community.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community Of the people who work for CAP, Brookings, or the like, which ones do you think are hack pseudo-scholars?
    - guscost 6y ago
      This world of yours where there are presumably only “real intellectuals” in one camp, and a plague of “hack pseudo-scholars” in the other, is simply absurd. It makes no sense to me so I cannot comment on it. I could go into how I feel about the whole cult of NPR news-announcers going after their enemies day in and day out, but you probably wouldn’t want to hear it.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        I have seen very little partisanship from npr reporters. Much less "going after" specific people on the regular.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      There's a lot of hack pseudo-scholarship going on in universities, almost all on the political left. Just yesterday there was this article on HN: https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with-social-science-and-how-to-fix-it/#There-Are-No-Journals-With-Strict-Quality-Standards https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with... And that doesn't include the various grievance studies, nor, epidemiology, which turns out to be absolutely full of hack papers that cherry pick their sources, abuse citations, make absurd assumptions and then bury them in appendices, etc etc. If Dr Fauci has been replaced (didn't know that) then that's certainly just fine given the overall level of intellectual rigour and integrity in the field. You could use a bunch of laymen and get more trustworthy output. The problem you're decrying is the proliferation of pseudo-science in general, it's not a political problem.
      - jacobolus 6y ago
        Your argument is: using a university’s reputation to lend credibility to abject bullshit written by career GOP political operatives in return for large donations from billionaires is okay, because grad students at universities often publish piles of methodologically unsound studies in their hurry to get their credentials and get out the door, especially in fields like evolutionary psychology, marketing, management, and criminology. Seems like a complete non sequitur to me. We were talking about poorly researched and argued advocacy/opinion, not nominally peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Your link specifically points out that political activism is not directly related to the problems of studies that won’t replicate: “Limited Political Hackery: Some of the most highly publicized social science controversies of the last decade happened at the intersection between political activism and low scientific standards: the implicit association test, stereotype threat, racial resentment, etc. I thought these were representative of a wider phenomenon, but in reality they are exceptions. The vast majority of work is done in good faith.” But I won’t disagree that there are many problems with academic publishing and the for-profit journal industry; the publish-or-perish career system; the exploitation of grad students, postdocs, and untenured teachers; people throughout academia using statistical tools who lack basic training/competence in data analysis and statistical inference; etc.
        6y ago
  - microtherion 6y ago
    Just look at the sourcing of this report: The number cited comes from the random blog of a Texas real estate company, citing a random (paywalled) newspaper. That's barely the quality of work of a really lazy high school student.
    - guscost 6y ago
      What’s your point?
      - microtherion 6y ago
        This is an absolutely ridiculous lack of scholarship. There's a good reason why HN prefers primary sources, and the moderators often replace links to secondary sources with the primary source. This particular submission has, at best, FOURTH HAND information (assuming that the Dallas Business Journal did not do original research).

jacobolus 6y ago

No, it’s not uncommon at all. There is a whole industry of billionaire-funded GOP “think tanks” whose business is laundering bullshit. It still reflects very poorly on Stanford though.

guscost 6y ago
You really think that this phenomenon only happens on one side of the political aisle? I can’t relate to any worldview where that situation is possible.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  It’s not really comparable. The difference is that scholars who aren’t GOP operatives generally live in what one senior Bush-administration official derisively called the “reality-based community.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community Of the people who work for CAP, Brookings, or the like, which ones do you think are hack pseudo-scholars?
  - guscost 6y ago
    This world of yours where there are presumably only “real intellectuals” in one camp, and a plague of “hack pseudo-scholars” in the other, is simply absurd. It makes no sense to me so I cannot comment on it. I could go into how I feel about the whole cult of NPR news-announcers going after their enemies day in and day out, but you probably wouldn’t want to hear it.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I have seen very little partisanship from npr reporters. Much less "going after" specific people on the regular.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    There's a lot of hack pseudo-scholarship going on in universities, almost all on the political left. Just yesterday there was this article on HN: https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with-social-science-and-how-to-fix-it/#There-Are-No-Journals-With-Strict-Quality-Standards https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with... And that doesn't include the various grievance studies, nor, epidemiology, which turns out to be absolutely full of hack papers that cherry pick their sources, abuse citations, make absurd assumptions and then bury them in appendices, etc etc. If Dr Fauci has been replaced (didn't know that) then that's certainly just fine given the overall level of intellectual rigour and integrity in the field. You could use a bunch of laymen and get more trustworthy output. The problem you're decrying is the proliferation of pseudo-science in general, it's not a political problem.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      Your argument is: using a university’s reputation to lend credibility to abject bullshit written by career GOP political operatives in return for large donations from billionaires is okay, because grad students at universities often publish piles of methodologically unsound studies in their hurry to get their credentials and get out the door, especially in fields like evolutionary psychology, marketing, management, and criminology. Seems like a complete non sequitur to me. We were talking about poorly researched and argued advocacy/opinion, not nominally peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Your link specifically points out that political activism is not directly related to the problems of studies that won’t replicate: “Limited Political Hackery: Some of the most highly publicized social science controversies of the last decade happened at the intersection between political activism and low scientific standards: the implicit association test, stereotype threat, racial resentment, etc. I thought these were representative of a wider phenomenon, but in reality they are exceptions. The vast majority of work is done in good faith.” But I won’t disagree that there are many problems with academic publishing and the for-profit journal industry; the publish-or-perish career system; the exploitation of grad students, postdocs, and untenured teachers; people throughout academia using statistical tools who lack basic training/competence in data analysis and statistical inference; etc.
      - 6y ago
- microtherion 6y ago
  Just look at the sourcing of this report: The number cited comes from the random blog of a Texas real estate company, citing a random (paywalled) newspaper. That's barely the quality of work of a really lazy high school student.
  - guscost 6y ago
    What’s your point?
    - microtherion 6y ago
      This is an absolutely ridiculous lack of scholarship. There's a good reason why HN prefers primary sources, and the moderators often replace links to secondary sources with the primary source. This particular submission has, at best, FOURTH HAND information (assuming that the Dallas Business Journal did not do original research).