Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 221 posts

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#41

Post by 1_listerine_pls »

cafebeen wrote: post #28
alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

Well, scientists are people too, so they have feelings and are not perfect. I think there are polite ways provide criticism and corrections, hopefully without humiliating people with good intentions. If it's a simple mistake, they can email the author and suggest an erratum. If it's more serious, then it's common to write a response in the journal. I think more public forms of criticism are perceived as bullying beca…

I don't care about their reputations. It's not a school mascot contest. These are scientific papers.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#42

Post by cafebeen »

wyager wrote: post #29
cafebeen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, scientists are people too, so they have feelings and are not perfect. I think there are polite ways provide criticism and corrections, hopefully without humiliating people with good intentions. If it's a simple mistake, they can email the author and suggest an erratum. If it's more serious, then it's common to write a response in the journal. I think more public forms of criticism are perceived as bullying beca…

If someone objectively screwed up a published study, there's no room for feelings or social consideration. People might be wasting their precious time and money pursuing impossible goals based on the incorrect study. Let's say someone finds a mistake in a math paper. Do they politely ask the author to fix it? What happens if the author ignores them? The scientific community doesn't have time to coddle and pursue ever…

It's not coddling as much as professional courtesy. Mistakes are often brought up at conferences and in peer review, but most scientists within a specific research area try to be on good terms with one another and don't see value in publicly shaming colleagues for their mistakes.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#43

Post by dmd »

c3534l wrote: post #34

> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve. > Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.” > The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological t…

I took a class with Susan Fiske in grad school, and the following is a quote from one of her comments on a homework where I had called into question a paper that was clearly not just statistically incorrectly done but was based on urban-legend-level assumptions:

"These results are from respected investigators, so it's inappropriate to question them."

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#45

Post by Mithaldu »

kevinwang wrote: post #38
c3534l wrote: post #34

> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve. > Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.” > The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological t…

The last quote, which is the most extreme response, seems like it's not entirely within the same context as the article. I got that it was talking about _human_ online critics, and especially (only?) those who have an "uncivil tone", which is something I agree with.

Yeah, that's the key detail here.

The article went kinda off-topic on itself, by throwing in quotes about a completely unrelated incident, which on skimming may be read as referring to statcheck, despite having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#46

Post by Consultant32452 »

trjordan wrote: post #26
alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

They weren't looking for errors in papers and trying to push for corrections or improve the science. They were using these errors as fodder for promoting their software. It might not be bullying, but it's not coming from a place of objectivity or honest debate.

Yeah, this is an abusive marketing technique. If you don't want future embarrassment you'd better buy our service.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#47

Post by ben_jones »

dmd wrote: post #43
c3534l wrote: post #34

> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve. > Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.” > The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological t…

I took a class with Susan Fiske in grad school, and the following is a quote from one of her comments on a homework where I had called into question a paper that was clearly not just statistically incorrectly done but was based on urban-legend-level assumptions: "These results are from respected investigators, so it's inappropriate to question them."

While I trust your story, and I believe it's somewhat taboo on HN to ask for this, I feel that it would be much more valuable if evidence was provided. That is an absolutely egregious act for a professor to commit and I feel like it should be reported to someone if substantiated..

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#48

Post by Mithaldu »

dahart wrote: post #15
alanfalcon wrote: post #3

I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?

When I read that sentence, I immediately thought it sounded like some people were being childish and defensive. OTOH, a bunch of people got unsolicited error reports for already published papers, and I can understand being initially irritated. This was, by the admission of the statcheck authors, a way to get attention quickly. My guess is it'll all settle down and people won't complain about bullying once everyone ju…

> unsolicited error reports for already published papers, and I can understand being initially irritated

Please don't see this as me attacking you, i am genuinely baffled by what you said and would like to understand your thinking.

How exactly could you possibly have any sort of understanding for that? How would you feel about a software author being irritated by unsolicited error reports? If that irritation is less acceptable than the one in your quote, where would lie the difference?

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#49

Post by dmd »

ben_jones wrote: post #47
dmd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a class with Susan Fiske in grad school, and the following is a quote from one of her comments on a homework where I had called into question a paper that was clearly not just statistically incorrectly done but was based on urban-legend-level assumptions: "These results are from respected investigators, so it's inappropriate to question them."

While I trust your story, and I believe it's somewhat taboo on HN to ask for this, I feel that it would be much more valuable if evidence was provided. That is an absolutely egregious act for a professor to commit and I feel like it should be reported to someone if substantiated..

Oh, I made a huge stink about it (and this was just one example of many comments of that type). This was at Penn in 2007.

Re: A bot crawled thousands of studies looking for simple math errors

#50

Post by thaw13579 »

c3534l wrote: post #34

> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve. > Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.” > The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological t…

> That anyone in the field of psychology would even be comfortable publically espousing a non-scientific worldview like that means that psychologists are not being properly educated in the scientific method.

This is a generalization about psychologists from a sample size of one psychologist, to suggest that they don't understand science?

Post reply on HN