4 ms·
It appears to have been in the semi-public view for quite a long time. Was there ever any action taken? Other related info: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.js
by columbo 14y ago
It appears to have been in the semi-public view for quite a long time. Was there ever any action taken?
Other related info:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=715422 http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=715422
http://www.nychold.com/rev-bishop-0302.html http://www.nychold.com/rev-bishop-0302.html
In 2006 Milgram claimed that I had engaged in scientific misconduct.
Milgram and Bishop attempted aggressively to identify my research subjects
That's unacceptable. If either of those are true they should be stripped of their titles and degrees.
- droithomme 14y agohttp://www.nychold.com/rev-bishop-0302.html http://www.nychold.com/rev-bishop-0302.html Is this the actual bullying or is it something more than this? This particular article by Bishop is not bullying, it's standard academic criticism and it's very reasonable. If this is representative of the actual issues, then that seriously changes my opinion of what is going on here. If this is the worst of it, I strongly recommend that everyone read this book review and decide for themselves if Bishop is a villain who is unfairly bullying another academic.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jlgreco 14y agoStripping people of their titles and degrees merely for incorrectly claiming that one of their peers has engaged in scientific misconduct would have a chilling effect on progress. If it can be proven that they made those allegations with nothing more than malicious intent, then sure: punish away. But to go after anyone who incorrectly alleges scientific misconduct is an unspeakably terrible idea.
- russelluresti 14y agoI believe it's the "aggressively tried to identify the research subjects" that probably warrants a more severe punishment. This is a HUGE no-no in research, as research MUST be, for accurate information, anonymous. His attempt to identify them undermines the very most basic level of good research.
- tokenadult 14y agoThis is a HUGE no-no in research, as research MUST be, for accurate information, anonymous. Are you sure that this is an invariant characteristic of good research? What is the authority for conducting a research project in a manner that doesn't allow another researcher to check the raw data? To the contrary, these days there are several very responsible researchers who call for much more open access to research data sets (yes, those could protect subject identities at the individual level while still being traceable to a specific site for follow-up) to promote better science. http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/ http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/ http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/data-detective-makes-his-fraud-busting-algorithm-public.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/data-detective-makes-hi...
- 001sky 14y agoI don't have a bone in this fight, but when sample sizes are approaching N=1, you run the risk of evidence tampering, absent anonymity. You also enable political retaliation (ie, principla X supported Y, pull his funding...or oh look at him slip on a sidewalk...woops). Its credible, given the obvious anonymosity (all around), and the politicization of teachers unions (viz, wisconson, chicago, ect) that this consideration be taken into account. Again, this is not a "political point" (partisan sense) as it is a practical one about Naivete, and what desperate people do when they feel threatened.
- brg 14y agoIf they believed that the research had been misrepresented, then the fastest way to confirmation is to evaluate the actual data. Unmasking the source could be one way to do this. As they were not a party to the agreement of anonymity, I think their actions are fine.