101–110 of 209 posts
That's weak-- accused. Also, who cares if they did lie? Knowing about dishonesty is not the same as positioning oneself as a beacon for morality. This is not front-page HN worthy material.
There is this pattern where things are always the opposite of their message: - Dishonesty expert is dishonest - Politicians who constantly talk about freedom want to restrict anything that doesn't fit their world view - Militant anti-gay preachers hire call boys - Diversity teams are the least diverse
I've always wondered if ethics class impart any ethics at all. If you're not an ethical person, why would you become one after taking such a class? If you're already an ethical person, taking a class in it is pointless.
Try the trolley problem. Is it okay to divert a trolley to kill 1 innocent person to save 10? What about 5? What about 1? And this is just an abstract thought problem. Now try war, nukes, abortion, death penalty, etc. Everyone has a simplistic and superficial idea of ethics. An ethics class helps you develop a deeper and broader understanding of ethics. To develop the what and why of ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "X is ethical" is true, then people who believe "X is unethical" have a false belief. On the other hand, moral relativists believe that ethics is context- or culture-dependent. So for a moral relativist, "X is ethical" has no universal truth value, but must be…
Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. All ethics assert a universal ethical framework. Moral relativism just offers a really complicated one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on your beliefs about the status of ethics. Moral realists believe that there are independently true facts about ethics. So for a moral realist, if "X is ethical" is true, then people who believe "X is unethical" have a false belief. On the other hand, moral relativists believe that ethics is context- or culture-dependent. So for a moral relativist, "X is ethical" has no universal truth value, but must be…
Except that moral relativism ultimately boils down to a universal axiom of "One ought behave in a manner aligning with the moral framework of their setting", offering an inherent contradiction with the belief that there aren't axiomatic ethical rules. All ethics assert a universal ethical framework. Moral relativism just offers a really complicated one.
Except it doesn't. Moral relativism doesn't make any claims about the way one should behave. It's entirely consistent with a moral relativist point of view to oppose commonly accepted morality. Moral relativism merely asserts that there is no absolute arbiter of good and evil, no immutable arc of history towards freedom, no inalienable right. Everything is a matter of opinion and consensus, and consensus is always fluid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is also why large industrial ML labs have mixed productivity. My observation has been that people decide that a problem is important because someone high up thought it was important. The researchers using the methodology that shows the largest offline impact are rewarded - not those with the most rigorous finding. This creates a strong incentive to fudge the results and never ship anything. I knew of o…
What happened after 5 years? Did he get caught? Or just founded his own unicorn ai startup
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For similar reasons, I left academia. I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing. But it turned out that academia doesn’t really do this anymore, it just sells itself as doing these things. Academia is entirely a “reputation” system, as it turns out, from paper publishing to student-evaluations to “public rankings.” As it turns out, the capitalist marketplace must also contend with the…
Wait a second, the blog which is bringing to light these issues is by academics who ARE seeking the truth. As someone in academia (very different field than Behavioral psych), I'm very cautious of people who say overgeneralised hyperbole such as: > I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing. Because doing science is not clear concise straight forward exercise people envision. (Science…
In situations like this, people should demand credible investigations, then wait quietly while that proceeds -- avoiding trial-by-Twitter and summary execution upon accusation.
You're putting the burden on "people" here. I think instead, the right way to look at it is that institutions should provide both prompt reactive investigations and proactive work to keep investigations from being necessary. The reason people get thoroughly upset here rather than waiting quietly is that this stuff gets ignored or covered up all the time.
I agree that one of the problems is that we've sometimes been given reason not to expect an institution to have integrity.
One of the other problems is that public discourse is often lacking in integrity, as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered if ethics class impart any ethics at all. If you're not an ethical person, why would you become one after taking such a class? If you're already an ethical person, taking a class in it is pointless.
Question from a non-student of philosophy: Why do people use the term "ethical" as though there were a single agreed-upon "right" system of ethics? My understanding is that there are numerous concepts of right and wrong, some of which are very divisive. So i.e. there are people who would be widely detested for being "ethical" in unfashionable frameworks.
Individual researchers have huge incentives for fraud, but large universities are the ones who most need to look inward here. HBS could become a beacon for stronger research practices in this area - requiring study preregistration and data collection methods that carefully trace provenance and changes. If HBS has fewer but better quirky marketing psychology studies, their reputation will do well. However for an indiv…
For similar reasons, I left academia. I joined academia for the pursuit of truth, and forth the glory of Knowing. But it turned out that academia doesn’t really do this anymore, it just sells itself as doing these things. Academia is entirely a “reputation” system, as it turns out, from paper publishing to student-evaluations to “public rankings.” As it turns out, the capitalist marketplace must also contend with the…
People only care about lines on the CV - and are willing to do anything to add another under the “peer reviewed” column. Including, lie, cheat, and steal (ideas).
The FT article says: 'A group of academics who compile the Data Colada blog about the evidence behind behavioural science has started publishing a series of posts in which they say they will detail “evidence of fraud in four academic papers” co-authored by Gino'. The first two of these blog posts are: https://datacolada.org/109 https://datacolada.org/110
> It is worth reiterating that to the best of our knowledge, none of Gino’s co-authors carried out or assisted with the data collection for the studies in this series.
I'm confused; I thought 109 described a paper in which Ariely was the sole person to handle the data. How is this not contradictory?