4 ms·

The argument, as I've repeated over and over, is simple; what scientists publish is what matters. What they say in private Slack chats and emails is entirely ir

by Zetice 3y ago

The argument, as I've repeated over and over, is simple; what scientists publish is what matters. What they say in private Slack chats and emails is entirely irrelevant. I await these authors collective retractions, but lacking that, these Slack messages mean absolutely nothing, and Nate Silver knows that, as should you. And you ought to learn what an ad hominem is. Worst application of the term I've seen on HN in a while.

somenameforme 3y ago
You're again failing to even hint at what you think this "really good argument" is, and you're also not formulating an argument yourself. Your argument relies on ignoring all evidence and simply assuming your provably false assumption that the world of academia is this amazing place free of bias where merit and objectivity are truly all that matter. As for retractions. Things move, at best, slowly even when overt. The Lancet's also the journal that published the MMR-Autism paper, back in 1998. It wasn't fully retracted until 2010 (there was a partial retraction in 2004). And even then it wasn't due to this beautiful system you've built up in your mind, but rather a an investigation from one of Murdoch's newspapers showing the paper's author was a conman.
- Zetice 3y ago
  This is the argument. This is not a hint, a clue, an implication, it is me directly stating what the argument is: The argument, as I've repeated over and over, is simple; what scientists publish is what matters. What they say in private Slack chats and emails is entirely irrelevant. I await these authors collective retractions, but lacking that, these Slack messages mean absolutely nothing, and Nate Silver knows that, as should you.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Okay, so let's go back to 1998 and some 'Slack' (IRC?) chats leak of Mr. MMR vax => autism guy. And he lays out everything pretty plainly - he's publishing it to sell some junk snake oil he's built up. Would you still be here going "No, that doesn't matter. It's been published, so it must be true. If it can be published, peer reviewed, it must be the legitimate word of science!" Or...?

by Zetice 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

You're again failing to even hint at what you think this "really good argument" is, and you're also not formulating an argument yourself. Your argument relies on ignoring all evidence and simply assuming your provably false assumption that the world of academia is this amazing place free of bias where merit and objectivity are truly all that matter. As for retractions. Things move, at best, slowly even when overt. The Lancet's also the journal that published the MMR-Autism paper, back in 1998. It wasn't fully retracted until 2010 (there was a partial retraction in 2004). And even then it wasn't due to this beautiful system you've built up in your mind, but rather a an investigation from one of Murdoch's newspapers showing the paper's author was a conman.

Zetice 3y ago
This is the argument. This is not a hint, a clue, an implication, it is me directly stating what the argument is: The argument, as I've repeated over and over, is simple; what scientists publish is what matters. What they say in private Slack chats and emails is entirely irrelevant. I await these authors collective retractions, but lacking that, these Slack messages mean absolutely nothing, and Nate Silver knows that, as should you.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Okay, so let's go back to 1998 and some 'Slack' (IRC?) chats leak of Mr. MMR vax => autism guy. And he lays out everything pretty plainly - he's publishing it to sell some junk snake oil he's built up. Would you still be here going "No, that doesn't matter. It's been published, so it must be true. If it can be published, peer reviewed, it must be the legitimate word of science!" Or...?