3 ms·

This doesn't appear to be fakery but rather an error. This article points to the value of publishing the raw data and the software used to analyze it. Just ca

by gumby 2y ago

This doesn't appear to be fakery but rather an error. This article points to the value of publishing the raw data and the software used to analyze it. Just casually dismissing it as "fakery" removes the opportunity to learn from it.

piombisallow 2y ago
It's an error they were happy to run with because it gave them a punchy conclusion and widespread publicity.
- calpal 2y ago
  [dead]
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The first time around they got the result they were expecting so they didn't go back and check their code. They probably would have if it initially stated the opposite.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” ― Ian Fleming, Goldfinger P-hacking is so endemic and so essential to modern academia, especially in the 'softer' sciences, that the whole thing is beyond saving. It's so bad that anyone who understands statistics well enough to know that most of their peers works are bogus are much more likely to be shunned than embraced because of this knowledge which is an incredible disincentive to acquiring it. Edit: as I can’t reply to the now dead account, the first quote explains why academia cannot keep claiming innocence on such matters. The rest of my comment was my explanation as to why nothing is being done about it. Sure, we can ask them to do better but they should already know that.
- calpal 2y ago
  [dead]
scarmig 2y ago
It's more like, you should be very skeptical of any shocking results that you find reported on widely in social media and the press. Errors will always happen; they are more likely to result in shocking, surprising results; and the press actively publicizes those results over others. The original paper got widespread press coverage, and its retraction got... Much less. You end up much dumber if you outsource your thinking to the Washington Post or Facebook.

by gumby 2y ago

piombisallow 2y ago

It's an error they were happy to run with because it gave them a punchy conclusion and widespread publicity.

calpal 2y ago
[dead]
lupusreal 2y ago
The first time around they got the result they were expecting so they didn't go back and check their code. They probably would have if it initially stated the opposite.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” ― Ian Fleming, Goldfinger P-hacking is so endemic and so essential to modern academia, especially in the 'softer' sciences, that the whole thing is beyond saving. It's so bad that anyone who understands statistics well enough to know that most of their peers works are bogus are much more likely to be shunned than embraced because of this knowledge which is an incredible disincentive to acquiring it. Edit: as I can’t reply to the now dead account, the first quote explains why academia cannot keep claiming innocence on such matters. The rest of my comment was my explanation as to why nothing is being done about it. Sure, we can ask them to do better but they should already know that.

calpal 2y ago
[dead]

scarmig 2y ago

It's more like, you should be very skeptical of any shocking results that you find reported on widely in social media and the press. Errors will always happen; they are more likely to result in shocking, surprising results; and the press actively publicizes those results over others. The original paper got widespread press coverage, and its retraction got... Much less. You end up much dumber if you outsource your thinking to the Washington Post or Facebook.