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

A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#31

Post by peterthehacker »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

While you’re right in a broad sense your points are irrelevant here. This is about fraudulent data (apparently created with a random number generator) being used. This is not and should not be something we expect from scientists. If this story was solely about the replication crisis in behavioral economics, then your comment would be relevant.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#32

Post by enkid »

throwawayboise wrote: post #29
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the science”. You’re right, but also, there’s more to it. There is a difference between what people say and what people mean and context is important. When I’ve heard people say “trust the science” it is always directed to people who have demonstrated that they do not understand the scientific method and the meaning of the word “healthy skeptici…

> When I’ve heard people say “trust the science” it is always directed to people who have demonstrated that they do not understand the scientific method I think "always" is too strong. With regards to COVID vaccines I have heard that line thrown at people who say "this conclusion is too new, it has not stood the test of time" and now lo and behold we are seeing that the early "95% effective" rates are not holding up.…

The 95% effectiveness was based on the version of COVID that was circulating at the time. No one said it would be 95% effective against every possible mutation. Claiming the results of those studies are wrong instead of a result of a changing environment is itself a misunderstanding of science.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#33

Post by perl4ever »

HPsquared wrote: post #28
throwawaysleep wrote: post #25

The person doing the fraud realized that ironically, the main reason to be honest is if you are being checked on it. I would totally have believed this study intuitively as my honesty is dependent on my assessment of the risk of getting caught.

This is why learning morals and ethics don't necessarily make a person more moral or ethical: the knowledge can be used to try and "beat the system".

The longer someone maintains a reputation for honesty and ethics, the more they will be trusted and the more they can get away with in the end.

Therefore the most advantageous way to try to "beat the system" may be to defer any dishonest behavior for an indefinitely long time, until a "rainy day".

Makes me think of:

https://xkcd.com/810/

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#34

Post by indymike »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

> Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor.

This is probably the most insightful comment on the subject I've ever read.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#35

Post by avalys »

Patrick Winston, professor and former director of MIT CSAIL, told a brief story in class back in 2008 or so. He said it was sort of a running joke in the graduate admissions committee that people were drawn to study and research the areas of AI that corresponded to weaknesses of their own.

I.e., people with poor hearing study speech recognition. People with face blindness study computer vision. People with poor writing skills study natural language processing. And so forth.

"And every so often", he said, turning to face the class with a small grin on his face, "we get a grad student who comes before the committee and says he's interested in all aspects of artificial intelligence."

It was amusing at the time, but had an element of truth to it as well. It's not surprising to me that dishonest people would be drawn to a career studying honesty.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#36

Post by rozab »

koboll wrote: post #10

"Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest" kinda undersells it. The debunking offers numerous pieces of stone cold proof that the paper is straight-up academic fraud: https://datacolada.org/98 And since the post says "the fourth author has made it clear to us that he was the only author in touch with the insurance company", it seems clear that Ariely personally fabricated the data.

This evidence is clearly irrefutable. It's fascinating how a well respected scientist could make such elementary mistakes when fabricating data.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#37

Post by WalterBright »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #20
efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

> I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the science”. You’re right, but also, there’s more to it. There is a difference between what people say and what people mean and context is important. When I’ve heard people say “trust the science” it is always directed to people who have demonstrated that they do not understand the scientific method and the meaning of the word “healthy skeptici…

When I hear people say "trust the science" the speaker is often a non-scientist who is selectively picking what science fits their agenda and ignoring the rest.

It's the same thing when somebody says "trust me, I'm a XXXXX", it's time to be very skeptical.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#38

Post by [deleted] »

enkid wrote: post #32
throwawayboise wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I’ve heard people say “trust the science” it is always directed to people who have demonstrated that they do not understand the scientific method I think "always" is too strong. With regards to COVID vaccines I have heard that line thrown at people who say "this conclusion is too new, it has not stood the test of time" and now lo and behold we are seeing that the early "95% effective" rates are not holding up.…

The 95% effectiveness was based on the version of COVID that was circulating at the time. No one said it would be 95% effective against every possible mutation. Claiming the results of those studies are wrong instead of a result of a changing environment is itself a misunderstanding of science.

[deleted]

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#39

Post by sodality2 »

unreal37 wrote: post #24
koboll wrote: post #10

"Now some are questioning whether the scientist himself is being dishonest" kinda undersells it. The debunking offers numerous pieces of stone cold proof that the paper is straight-up academic fraud: https://datacolada.org/98 And since the post says "the fourth author has made it clear to us that he was the only author in touch with the insurance company", it seems clear that Ariely personally fabricated the data.

I don't think that's "clear" at all. Even the blog link doesn't come to that conclusion.

I think "We ran 1 million simulations to determine how often this level of similarity could emerge just by chance. Under the most generous assumptions imaginable, it didn’t happen once." is pretty damning.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#40

Post by sodality2 »

krolchat wrote: post #16

>buzzfeed news What a quality source, I will absolutely believe in it's honesty

Buzzfeed investigative journalism is top-tier [1]. There is a clear difference between this type of article and the rest of the cesspool.

[1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations

Post reply on HN