41–50 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" lined up against the wall ", really? I think you would be more convincing if you toned it down a bit on the metaphors.
It was parent's metaphor, not mine. The substance holds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "scientific venue" has been corrupted That's a pretty strong accusation. Do you have any evidence? Cuddy herself, in the linked article, even asks: "Why not come to a conference or hold a seminar?" I don't think you're wrong about the lack of quality reviewing, but I also think that blogs and Facebook and articles in pop sci news venues are pretty shitty places to address the quality of editorial review. And yo…
Just so you know, the basic statistical problem with this type of research was pointed out back in the 60's ( http://andrewgelman.com/2016/05/06/needed-an-intellectual-hi... ), it's just that nobody listened.
1. failing to have read Meehl's critique doesn't amount to "corruption",
2. that calling people "corrupt" for having failed to read Meehl is not likely to be the most effective or the most civil path toward changing things, and
3. To the extent that discussion of scientific methodology on public forums causes or contributes to (2), that's a bad thing and perhaps suggests a fundamental cost of doing science in this manner.
It occurs to me that the replication crisis largely came into being because scientists are rewarded for publishing papers that demonstrate some effect and not for publishing papers that fail to demonstrate anything, and so the right fix would have been to fix the broken incentives. But apparently (if this article is to be believed) no such change in incentives has happened - the only thing is that there are now also…
Or you could get a large sample size to bring the p down to 0.01 or whatever. You know, do science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was parent's metaphor, not mine. The substance holds.
I don't see it in that comment. Where? I only see "Cuddy lost her reputation rather than her head.", which is not at all similar. (I don't see it in NYT either.)
(The NYT begins the metaphor with "revolution", parent extends it with "violent revolution", and I switched out one form of violence with another).
Andrew Gelman (of NYU), who is featured in the story and is criticized by Cuddy as being unfair and trollish, wrote a response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-r... I thought that Gelman wasn't presented in the best of light, especially his awkward quotes about not wanting to engage in "interpersonal conflict". But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty graciou…
Stakes matter. A million dollar poker game might be structurally identical to a game played for fun, but its effects on the people involved are very different. We wouldn't expect the players in these two games to think the same way. Talking about the stakes is in direct conflict with the scientific ideal of focusing on the science without talking about its effects on the scientists involved. For example, from Gelman'…
Science is about finding approximations of truth that are least influenced by the local context.
The whims of a particular scientist's ego (especially if you are that scientist!) make for a rather nasty contextual influence.
Of course, this is a difficult ask, but constantly striving towards this ideal is absolutely essential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You mischaracterize. Fiske is not criticizing "people who pointed out statistical errors" and begins the entire essay by explicitly stating as such: "Our field has always encourages -- required, really -- peer critiques"! > She is criticizing "unfiltered trash-talk [on social media]... [and] online vigilantes [who] are attacking individuals, their research programs, and their careers". Let me quote Gelman regarding…
Gelman has forged his own path to "fame, fortune, and acclaim". It's not clear to me that this path has actually improved (this particular branch of) science. In fact, by the sound of it, that path may've been at least as destructive as he claims Fiske et al's was. Which isn't an indict of Gelman, as I hardly intuit anything but positive intentions on his part. I'm less concerned with Fiske vs. Gelman and much more c…
I don't think turning a call for greater scientific rigor into a political fight is desirable, but neither do I think that confining this struggle to scientific venues is desirable (or practical, for that matter).
EDIT: wording fix
It occurs to me that the replication crisis largely came into being because scientists are rewarded for publishing papers that demonstrate some effect and not for publishing papers that fail to demonstrate anything, and so the right fix would have been to fix the broken incentives. But apparently (if this article is to be believed) no such change in incentives has happened - the only thing is that there are now also…
There were (are?) enough degrees of freedom in the field in every study to always meet this threshold.
Andrew Gelman (of NYU), who is featured in the story and is criticized by Cuddy as being unfair and trollish, wrote a response: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/10/18/beyond-power-pose-using-r... I thought that Gelman wasn't presented in the best of light, especially his awkward quotes about not wanting to engage in "interpersonal conflict". But he called the piece "excellent and fair to all sides" and was pretty graciou…
This makes lesser people working in dirtier subjects very uncomfortable: when he hits them they have nothing of substance to hit back with except generic insults.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. geofft's comment hits the nail on the head when it comes to what effect this did vs. should've had on her tenure case, I think. A study that fails to replicate is no indication of malice or even incompetence. Some say she should've run self-replications, but how many years self-replication studies are you willing to run on $20k/yr (in fact, how many…
> As I indicated up-thread, I'm mostly on your side of these politics. I know, and I think we are mostly in agreement. I generally don't like seeing individuals dragged through the mud. It's also somewhat unfair to judge her actions pre-replication crisis by our standards post-replication crisis. I also agree that a single study failing to replicate is not an instance of malice or incompetence, in fact I think all sc…
We definitely agree on this. I think all the TED science stuff is silliness. Cuddy's mistake was both being a serious scientist and being a popular TED speaker. Popular TED speakers make BS science claims all the time, but they aren't scientists so it doesn't matter.
But I wouldn't advocate for firing someone because they disagree and think TED is a good place to popularize science (even if they happen to popularize science that later turns out to be bad science).
Sounds like straight up sexism to me.