6 ms·
This paper appears to be criticizing just one specific study and there’s no support for the broader conclusion in the headline that such studies are “mostly” fr
by isx726552 5y ago
This paper appears to be criticizing just one specific study and there’s no support for the broader conclusion in the headline that such studies are “mostly” fraudulent.
Not to mention this paper notes in its conclusion that the study in question was already roundly criticized at the time (see the paragraph beginning with “[t]he public arena is at least somewhat self-correcting”), so it’s not clear what is being added to the discourse, other than unsupported generalizations.
- brimble 5y agoI've not heard of this place before, but it seems like a budding or wannabe "think tank". Getting things wrong (drawing too broad a conclusion, using misleading framing) even when you're right (this particular paper under scrutiny is bad) is kinda the whole thing such institutions do.
- m-watson 5y agoThey were formed in 2020 [https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-study-of-partisanship-and-ideology-cspi/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-study-o...] and seem to have a few reports doing the same thing. They start with an actual specific analysis and then expand dramatically.
- dang 5y agoOk, we'll use the more specific part of the title above. Submitted title was '“Policy-Relevant” Social Science Is Mostly a Fraud', which wasn't so bad - it's indeed what the article title says - but maybe it's misleading on the article's own part.