I was just in a work setting this past week where someone brought up ego depletion as a justification for a decision. The damage that these people do with their bad science is real and widespread. If "methodological terrorism" is what it will take to get them to take their damn jobs seriously then I'm all for it. Stop publishing garbage!
What has happened down here is the winds have changed
151–160 of 187 posts
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#152Good scientists should welcome this challenge with open arms, sunlight all of their data and code in a repository, and show how proper statistically rigorous research is conducted. That's an elevator right to the top of the field. If I wrote code that messed up, I'd patch it. If someone else points out a bug? Even better, now I don't have to find it myself. But I would definitely not feel attacked or nor would I blam…
As said toward the end of the article:
We learn from our mistakes, but only if we recognize that they are mistakes. Debugging is a collaborative process. If you approve some code and I find a bug in it, I’m not an adversary, I’m a collaborator. If you try to paint me as an “adversary” in order to avoid having to correct the bug, that’s your problem.
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's practically impossible to anonymize data without throwing away the information contained in it, doubly so if you don't know at the time what questions critics will want to see answered on that data.
That's not quite true. E.g. Google's email spam models are trained without access to the raw text. In general the field of differential privacy is developing rather quickly.
Netflix knows your approximate age, gender, and where you live based on your movie likes alone. I suspect the comment you replied to was making the point that Big Data is making privacy impossible. See here for an example: https://datafloq.com/read/re-identifying-anonymous-people-wi...
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
"sunlight all of their data and code in a repository" Good idea where possible, but "all their data" will be problematic in many social science studies, and also in medicine, because of privacy laws.
Keep in mind that data can always be anonymized. So even most medical or social science research data can be put in a repo.
Inferences in large data sets are more powerful than you think. Individual people have been identified from multiple "anonymized" scrubbed datasets, and its only getting easier as the datasets get bigger and the analytics tech gets better.
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For too long we've assumed the bodies of accumulated knowledge in the sciences to be fact without dispute Who is this "we" who has assumed such a thing? Certainly no working scientist I know would agree that a result being published means it is necessarily correct. Nevertheless, some knowledge of the world scientists have accumulated has very strong support, and those who challenge it have invariably turned out to…
The 'we' could be a bunch of people who are no longer even alive. No longer alive in body but alive in spirit through the application of the law. I was listening to a building science podcast the other day. In it they were talking about how they used to use, and still use, a 100 year old assumption about 'make-up air' in houses which is part of setting up an air conditioning system. Turns out the original scientific…
> I'll look it up if anybody's interested.
You should post it. Definitely sounds interesting to me.
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#156The phenomenon described here is one of many side effects of what I think is the greatest disturbance in the zeitgeist since at least 9/11: the disintermediation of information itself. We live in an era where authorities of all kinds are under greater scrutiny than ever before, because the Internet's made it so much easier for everyone to learn about and discuss what they're doing. And to believe that we know better…
This.
I wish I was able to have written what you just did.
Ok So now you juxtaposed these. Is there a direct link?
Lemme ponder. Thanks!!
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#157Good scientists should welcome this challenge with open arms, sunlight all of their data and code in a repository, and show how proper statistically rigorous research is conducted. That's an elevator right to the top of the field. If I wrote code that messed up, I'd patch it. If someone else points out a bug? Even better, now I don't have to find it myself. But I would definitely not feel attacked or nor would I blam…
"sunlight all of their data and code in a repository" Good idea where possible, but "all their data" will be problematic in many social science studies, and also in medicine, because of privacy laws.
In the USA the federal government has established clear rules for anonymizing (de-identifying) healthcare data. So it's clearly possible to do so.
http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/special-t...
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#158[deleted]
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
"sunlight all of their data and code in a repository" Good idea where possible, but "all their data" will be problematic in many social science studies, and also in medicine, because of privacy laws.
In the USA the federal government has established clear rules for anonymizing (de-identifying) healthcare data. So it's clearly possible to do so. http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/special-t...
It should be pointed out that thanks to the explosion of data anonymizing is a lot harder than you might expect.
Re: What has happened down here is the winds have changed
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good scientists should welcome this challenge with open arms They should welcome online trolling, abuse, and personal attacks? That is what Fiske criticizes in her article, not serious criticism and debate, which she explicitly welcomes and encourages.
Fiske is pulling a classic Motte and Bailey strategy. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word... The Motte is that we should condemn personal attacks, trolling, and abuse. This is completely uncontroversial and nobody sane would disagree. The Bailey is that criticism made outside of the peer review process is somehow terrorism , which is so ludicrous that ones reaction should involve spirited lau…
That was a great read. Illustrated the problems really well. I thought the antibiotic thing was hilarious. Still need more condensed posts to drop on anyone skeptical about the SJW effect happening where lines are drawn in prejudicial ways with words that are used as weapons. Many people might not go through such a long piece.