3 ms·
Yes, the article lists three theoretical possibilities. I expect the datacolada authors are not stating how likely they think each of those theoretical possibil
by jsnell 3y ago
Yes, the article lists three theoretical possibilities. I expect the datacolada authors are not stating how likely they think each of those theoretical possibilities is, for obvious reasons. I don't feel under such constraints.
One of those logical possibilities can be excluded entirely thanks to everyone involved agreeing that Ariely was the only person in contact with the company and handling the data ingestion. It could not have been anybody else in the lab.
The other theory is beyond absurd. Not only did the insurance company fabricate the data, but they happened to fabricate results that showed the effect Ariely needed for a high profile publication. Theories like your "slacking off data entry clerk" just don't make sense there.
Now, maybe if Ariely could provide even a shred of evidence for this being the data he received, I could change my mind. But he can't produce the file he received from the company. He can't tell who at the company sent it to him. The trail just runs cold at Ariely.
- crazygringo 3y ago> they happened to fabricate results that showed the effect Ariely needed for a high profile publication He'd already done lab experiments that showed the effect he thought existed, and it's easy to imagine an associate who actually fabricated the data already knew what he was looking to confirm. Again, I'm not saying I think he's guilty or not. I'm just saying that from everything I've read so far, it seems plausible it was sloppiness and not checking data for signs of manipulation. That this sloppiness isn't "beyond absurd", but rather more like the classic "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (or by an overworked/overambitious academic).
- jcranmer 3y ago> He'd already done lab experiments that showed the effect he thought existed, and it's easy to imagine the associate at the company knew what he was looking to confirm. Based on Bazerman's response, actually, he hadn't: > [The fradulent paper] came together in a merger of two prior non-published empirical efforts. Mazar-Ariely independently provided the data for Study 3, while Shu-Gino-Bazerman had written a paper containing two laboratory experiments (Studies 1 and 2). The Shu-Gino-Bazerman group knew of the Mazar-Ariely data from multiple public presentations by Ariely.