161–170 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the pfzier study the judge forced them to release Can you send a link to it?
Google made it impossible to find, found a link on yandex. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarke...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who works in Data Science at FAANG - if you look hard enough - there is something questionably wrong in every step of the data funnel. And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits. There are plenty of people that only care about career progression and think they can get away with lying and cheating their way to the top. They wouldn't believe that if it didn't work som…
"And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits." Nope. I actually think that if you do scientific research as a company (profit) it may make you less bad/less likely to do fraud compared to academia (non-profit). Reason is that there are more ways to punish you, employees, board, investors, etc in a profit seeking vehicle, and as a profit seeking vehicle being caught must be part…
We saw flaws in the data collection - basically the people tasked to collect data were being lazy and some were making stuff up. We know the made up stuff when we see it. Outliers are fine and some groups do better than expected, but an entire group from one data collecter shouldn't be 100% outliers.
But we had to enter the data anyway. We were told to smooth the bad data to what was expected. So the outliers that were low were smoothed high, the high outliers were left alone because they seemed right. But those of us who were spending hundreds of hours on data entry had an intuitive feel of what an outlier looked like.
IMO everything should have been entered as is and the computer data would just be filtered out if it was deemed from a corrupt source. But the data in the computer was biased to match what the research wanted to prove.
So I agree that non-profits can be corrupt too, just because of the incentives each part of the way. We were being paid about half a cent per column of data. So some assistants were lazy and filling in data that could be right, or skimming on fields like address which are longer and less likely to be flagged.
"For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either bec…
While we're on the subject, how many studies period are faked or flawed to the point of being useless? It seems to me that the scientific community's reaction to the replication crisis has been to ignore it.
The replication crisis is even a thing because of very strong career incentives. You might think that publishing about the replication crisis itself would be great for your career, but perhaps not. Maybe the incentives to be able to bullshit your way to a professorship are so great that no one wants to rock the boat.
Proving something is false is less valued than proving it right. It's silly because if we valued the quality of science it should be the exact opposite.
I'm sorry to say that I've personally witnessed some people in the next lab commit fraud. It was investigated and someone was fired, but I can believe that it is all too common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who works in Data Science at FAANG - if you look hard enough - there is something questionably wrong in every step of the data funnel. And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits. There are plenty of people that only care about career progression and think they can get away with lying and cheating their way to the top. They wouldn't believe that if it didn't work som…
I’ve literally never seen data-driven business decisions that weren’t using fatally flawed datasets or methods so bad that you’d be a fool to believe you were getting anything but gibberish out of them, except in trivial cases. You quickly learn not to be the guy pointing out the problem that means we’ll need several people and months or years to gather and analyze data that would allow them to (maybe) support or dis…
Oh, that hits home
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who works in Data Science at FAANG - if you look hard enough - there is something questionably wrong in every step of the data funnel. And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits. There are plenty of people that only care about career progression and think they can get away with lying and cheating their way to the top. They wouldn't believe that if it didn't work som…
"And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits." Nope. I actually think that if you do scientific research as a company (profit) it may make you less bad/less likely to do fraud compared to academia (non-profit). Reason is that there are more ways to punish you, employees, board, investors, etc in a profit seeking vehicle, and as a profit seeking vehicle being caught must be part…
So many people have the opinion that private research must be flawed because of the profit motive, but the profit motive ensures that someone will be motivated to take oversight seriously, and have the power to punish misbehavior.
Free markets, as ugly as they are sometimes, are still the best way we have of ensuring that incentives align with outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who works in Data Science at FAANG - if you look hard enough - there is something questionably wrong in every step of the data funnel. And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits. There are plenty of people that only care about career progression and think they can get away with lying and cheating their way to the top. They wouldn't believe that if it didn't work som…
"And that's when I believe people do have a somewhat best effort to maximize profits." Nope. I actually think that if you do scientific research as a company (profit) it may make you less bad/less likely to do fraud compared to academia (non-profit). Reason is that there are more ways to punish you, employees, board, investors, etc in a profit seeking vehicle, and as a profit seeking vehicle being caught must be part…
If published studies that have been replicated were the highest incentive instead, maybe it would reduce the risk of faked studies.