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

A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

andrewgelman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#41

Post by darkkindness »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #24

A sidenote: Using a snappy XKCD is not a valid logical argument even though the poster might think it makes one look hip and cool. I wish researchers were not this lazy. There are at least a handful of valid arguments that one could use rather than an XKCD cartoon.

The argument is that Wansink is responding to criticism (like the XKCD) with an air of indifference. Wansink's response to the XKCD is simply one of the examples; the XKCD itself is not being used to support the author's argument that the act of publishing non-rigorous work is too widespread in quantitative science today.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#42

Post by staticautomatic »

mythrwy wrote: post #31
MR4D wrote: post #17

It's weird. If conservatives don't believe scientists, it's because the conservatives are labelled "morons". Could it be that conservatives just think there's a lot more of this crappy "science" out there, and that a situation like this is the canary in the coal mine? When presented with examples like this, it's actually _irrational_ to think that there aren't other egregious papers out there. Possibly just a few, bu…

It should be noted that some conservatives believe in man made climate change. (although they may differ on an appropriate response). And presumably (although I've never seen it) there is at least one liberal who doesn't.

Why should there be liberals who do not believe in global warming?

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#43

Post by theWatcher37 »

throwaway729 wrote: post #28
MR4D wrote: post #17

It's weird. If conservatives don't believe scientists, it's because the conservatives are labelled "morons". Could it be that conservatives just think there's a lot more of this crappy "science" out there, and that a situation like this is the canary in the coal mine? When presented with examples like this, it's actually _irrational_ to think that there aren't other egregious papers out there. Possibly just a few, bu…

My thought: ridiculous false equivalency. Conservatives don't distrust science carte blanc. Many of them will chuck money at asinine bullshit as long as it's billed as a way to kill the other team. Check out some of the more ridiculous stuff to come out of DoD. They distrust climate science. And they don't distrust the actual science, just the conclusions. And increasingly not even the most basic conclusion, just the…

Meanwhile, anti-vax is huge in liberal soccer-mom only-shops-at-whole-foods cities.

The left has its fair share of science-denying morons as well.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#44

Post by theWatcher37 »

kem wrote: post #29
MR4D wrote: post #17

It's weird. If conservatives don't believe scientists, it's because the conservatives are labelled "morons". Could it be that conservatives just think there's a lot more of this crappy "science" out there, and that a situation like this is the canary in the coal mine? When presented with examples like this, it's actually _irrational_ to think that there aren't other egregious papers out there. Possibly just a few, bu…

I've had this same conversation with colleagues. I think there's a mixture of things going on. There's a lot more of this going on in a lot of fields, especially the biomedical and social sciences, but probably everywhere. I think conservatives are correct to pick up on this general phenomenon. They know there's a lot of systemic problems with research and academics, and approach things from that perspective. The pro…

Also some of them are older and remember the "2nd iceage" and "uncontrollable acid rain" doom and gloom.

Unfortunately the media has done a lot to poison the well on these topics, coupled with politicians all too happy to never let a crisis go to waste. Republicans yelling "small government" while trying to make a government big enough to police your bedroom. Democrats yell about stopping climate change and pump billions into crony companies that blow up and fail (all the while laundering taxpayer cash as campaign donations, republicans do this with defense groups).

So you get leftists going "we shouldn't like, have new fighter jets man" and right ringers thinking global warming is a laundering scheme.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#45

Post by cscurmudgeon »

darkkindness wrote: post #41
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #24

A sidenote: Using a snappy XKCD is not a valid logical argument even though the poster might think it makes one look hip and cool. I wish researchers were not this lazy. There are at least a handful of valid arguments that one could use rather than an XKCD cartoon.

The argument is that Wansink is responding to criticism (like the XKCD) with an air of indifference. Wansink's response to the XKCD is simply one of the examples; the XKCD itself is not being used to support the author's argument that the act of publishing non-rigorous work is too widespread in quantitative science today.

My point was not about Wasink or the original article. My point its that the XKCD cartoon doesn't convey anything other than snark.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#46

Post by danso »

sverige wrote: post #33

I went to high school with Brian Wansink. He is brilliant, funny, and affable. I could hear his voice speaking his responses to the objections raised, and snickered a little bit. I'm sure that Wansink cares about his research and its quality. He's that sort of person. I don't know what happened with these papers, but it seems likely that answering bloggers publicly would not serve the greater good. It seems to me tha…

If HN commenters are amateurs in this domain, what do you think of Andrew Gelman, who wrote the linked-to article and has harped on Wasnick's errors in multiple posts? ,any of the commenters on his blog seem to be well versed in the field too.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#47

Post by ajkjk »

staticautomatic wrote: post #42
mythrwy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that some conservatives believe in man made climate change. (although they may differ on an appropriate response). And presumably (although I've never seen it) there is at least one liberal who doesn't.

Why should there be liberals who do not believe in global warming?

It's just statistically likely.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#48

Post by Secretss »

sverige wrote: post #33

I went to high school with Brian Wansink. He is brilliant, funny, and affable. I could hear his voice speaking his responses to the objections raised, and snickered a little bit. I'm sure that Wansink cares about his research and its quality. He's that sort of person. I don't know what happened with these papers, but it seems likely that answering bloggers publicly would not serve the greater good. It seems to me tha…

> “Why is there almost no field of study which isn't tainted by the politics of left vs. right?”

You lost me there. What did you mean when you included this statement here? Are you saying this particular incident is tainted by politics? I discerned nothing political in Wansink's papers, the feedback they received, Wansink's responses, or Andrew Gelman's reaction pieces. Did I miss something?

I ask this because the rest of your comment became about politics vs ___, which didn’t feel natural to follow when I didn’t understand why politics is relevant here.

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#49

Post by JorgeGT »

tyingq wrote: post #2

I imagine Wansink does get it. Now that he's outed, he either trolling for fun, or hoping the blasé approach is the one that quiets all the fuss the fastest.

Probably he gets it, but you know, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it” (Upton Sinclair).

Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

#50

Post by lazyasciiart »

nonbel wrote: post #10
wfunction wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this? I don't think that's how laws or ethics rules work, for one. And I wasn't talking about a particular experiment, for two.

I've found I'm exceptional in being at all concerned about privacy. I think that if you asked, most people would only want minimal effort put towards confidentiality, especially since the trade-off is that other researchers won't be able to double check the analysis.

Even when studying STDs, or the effect of child sexual abuse, or how couples deal with infidelity in a marriage, or.....?
Post reply on HN