3 ms·

The author is saying that all of the papers are bullshit, garbage, and a waste of time. He is saying that everyone is turning a blind eye to this. He is saying

The author is saying that all of the papers are bullshit, garbage, and a waste of time. He is saying that everyone is turning a blind eye to this. He is saying that now that the fraud has got this bad, it is out in the open, and people will be forced to deal with the fact that the entire field is filled with garbage.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
That's right. Btw, I think the author is wrong. This is not "out in the open" now. It's been "out in the open" since for ever. And those who act all surprised about it are probably the ones who knew it better than most. I don't mean the author, of course, but he is pointing to some of his own papers as bullshit. Why did he publish bullshit papers if he knew they were bullshit? Or doese he mean those papers are bullshit with hindsight? That, I can understand- "I wrote this paper ten years ago and reading it now, I cringe". Sure, that happens and it's only evidence of the person's progress. But to say that one's research was bullshit in the context of an article that describes academic fraud that leads to the publication of bullshit? That I don't get. Surely the author is not confessing to committing academic fraud himself! I didn't get that from the footnote anyway.
- jacobbuckman 5y ago
  When I published those papers, I was new to the field. I was guided by the standards set by the community, by my mentors, by my peers. I was proud of each of those papers. At publication time, I believed I was doing good science, and the belief was re-affirmed by acceptance at top conferences. My thinking has evolved since then. The community norms have not.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    Oh, er, sorry for the harsh words, anyway I hope they didn't come across as too harsh. So I think you're saying the papers you linked to where "bullshit with hindsight", not that they were unethical at the time. Or at least you didn't think they were.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

That's right. Btw, I think the author is wrong. This is not "out in the open" now. It's been "out in the open" since for ever. And those who act all surprised about it are probably the ones who knew it better than most. I don't mean the author, of course, but he is pointing to some of his own papers as bullshit. Why did he publish bullshit papers if he knew they were bullshit? Or doese he mean those papers are bullshit with hindsight? That, I can understand- "I wrote this paper ten years ago and reading it now, I cringe". Sure, that happens and it's only evidence of the person's progress. But to say that one's research was bullshit in the context of an article that describes academic fraud that leads to the publication of bullshit? That I don't get. Surely the author is not confessing to committing academic fraud himself! I didn't get that from the footnote anyway.

jacobbuckman 5y ago
When I published those papers, I was new to the field. I was guided by the standards set by the community, by my mentors, by my peers. I was proud of each of those papers. At publication time, I believed I was doing good science, and the belief was re-affirmed by acceptance at top conferences. My thinking has evolved since then. The community norms have not.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  Oh, er, sorry for the harsh words, anyway I hope they didn't come across as too harsh. So I think you're saying the papers you linked to where "bullshit with hindsight", not that they were unethical at the time. Or at least you didn't think they were.