Live data from Hacker News

Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

arstechnica.com

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#111

> To believe that the Original data are fake and the Posted data are real, you’d have to believe that the sensible data are fake and the backwards data are real. That is a difficult thing to believe. > We were right about how the data were altered, Gino’s prevailing explanation for the alterations does not make sense, and yet we are the defendants in this case. What's the academic term for "mic drop"? https://datacol…

If she was falsifying data, I must assume it was to support a biased hypothesis she held however the article doesn’t elaborate on what conclusion her fraudulent data supported beyond this being a “behavioral science” study.

Can anyone fill in the gaps to those conspicuously missing details?

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#112
post #97

While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motion…

It's not just the money. When you're the target of litigation, particularly irregular specialist domain stuff that it can really take over your life. You might recover some of your legal costs from your opponent, but the disruption to your life will not be compensated.

Not to mention the time it takes. So not only are you losing money, losing time, and it's emotionally taxing, but you often aren't even making money during that time.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#113

I posted this a while back on here, but my wife works in Behavioural Science, and wrote this about it last year https://www.squarepeginsight.com/post/the-dark-side-of-behav...

Unlike Gino, Ariely doesn't seem to have had a downfall. He still has a lab at Duke, he keeps getting invited to give talks, his consultancy is still getting contracts. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe another behavioral scientist can fake an experiment to explain it.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#114

> To believe that the Original data are fake and the Posted data are real, you’d have to believe that the sensible data are fake and the backwards data are real. That is a difficult thing to believe. > We were right about how the data were altered, Gino’s prevailing explanation for the alterations does not make sense, and yet we are the defendants in this case. What's the academic term for "mic drop"? https://datacol…

> What's the academic term for "mic drop"?

I've always gone for "QED" but I'm sure there are better options out there :)

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#115

While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motion…

As someone with extensive experience paying legal bills, I would guess the bill was well over $40,000 unless the lawyer did it pro bono.

Our legal system is badly broken in favor of lawyers making more money.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#116
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the money. When you're the target of litigation, particularly irregular specialist domain stuff that it can really take over your life. You might recover some of your legal costs from your opponent, but the disruption to your life will not be compensated.

Not to mention the time it takes. So not only are you losing money, losing time, and it's emotionally taxing, but you often aren't even making money during that time.

...it's also an almost perfectly calibrated torture.

You have the prospect of the thing hanging over you, like an iceberg moving your way that you can't avoid, unable to make long term plans because you have little idea what your schedule will be like after the next scheduled event. Maybe in 6 months it'll be over, maybe you'll be in the middle of a trial, or depositions, or who knows what.

There are huge delays where you can do little productive, waiting out a court decision or for your oppositions filing clock to run out. It's easy to fall into a trap of spending your time worrying if there is something you missed. And it can be difficult to adopt other activities to take your mind off it since you don't control your future schedule, and those activities might end up as evidence in the case particularly if the lawsuit is over something that is your profession or your passion[1].

Then you have sudden panics as unexpected things come up with short deadlines. Then back to the wait.

Third parties often don't get why being personally targeted by litigation, particularly frivolous litigation, is such an imposition. Sure the specific hours spent handling things are easily understood, but the inability to make plans and the psychic cost of living under threat are less easily understood by someone who hasn't been there themselves.

People are prone to discount the impact proportional to the frivolity of the case, but the legal system is adversarial-- you must fully and competently defend even a fairly frivolous case or you will lose. I think the case being entirely without merit in some sense makes the pressure worse, since your opposition can make moves to strategically impose on you as they had little to no prospect of winning unless you screw up, even if those moves ultimately make them more likely to fail.

A well founded case can be clean with few distractions, you set out the fact-- the court rules. Or doesn't even rule because once the facts are established you can reach a fair settlement. With a bullshit case, potentially anything could happen.

Perhaps some people have dispositions that handle having their neck on a chopping block for years without trouble. But I know people who have thrown cases they were as close to guaranteed to win as any simply because they couldn't handle the stress of it and would rather lose and have it be over.

[1] To give a concrete example, I was being sued for several billion dollars in relation to a volunteer open source project that I hadn't contributed to for a couple years. I made a pull request to an unrelated piece of open source software in an unrelated field (a driver for a telescope focuser motor) only to have that show up in my opponents filings as "evidence" that I was still contributing to the project at issue. This is a stupid claim, but it's a question of fact, and potentially enough to keep me from being dropped from the case on a summary basis.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do universities typically go to bat for their faculty? Presumably the blog investigation is not done with any direct university involvement.

The universities might've deemed it to be an important enough PR situation and low risk enough to do it. Alternatively maybe they were obligated to back them up if the work was done in their official capacity as faculty?

I think you mean the universities of the Data Colada researchers, not the researchers accused of misconduct.

Sure, but if this were to become commonplace, you can see misconduct researchers becoming a target for big recurring legal defense bills, big enough to involve insurers, faculty funding, etc. Eventually we might a some landmark verdict like the Apple-vs-Samsung of misconduct/defamation trials.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#118
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess a 20-30k retainer in this occurrence would be a discounted retainer as well. I say this just based upon my personal experience with a few smaller firms.

If you're known to be good for the money, you can often get lower retainer bills from lawyers. That's why Donald Trump has to put up tens of millions for any legal project. Many of my lawyers do not ask for retainers for work at all, even for bigger things.

He's also running out of lawyers willing to commit perjury and risk disbarment on his behalf.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#119
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I blocked the TED channel on YouTube a few years back as it was getting bad. They first diluted their "brand" or quality with TEDx, and it's been downhill since as they've been scraping the bottom of the barrel and tried to "scale" or "franchise". Happens everytime, growth at all costs. The only way to stop it is to have passionate leaders who care more about the goal than the money. Unfortunately, usually by the tim…

I don't have a problem with the concept of locally branded TED talks under the TEDx umbrella, but I do have a problem of TEDx talks pretending that they are genuine TED talks. Generally actual TED talks have some quality checks built in, they sometimes allow garbage through, but it's far more rigid than the stuff you see at the TEDx talks.

I presume you just need to pay to get up on stage.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#120
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm at the point where if I see it in a TED talk I'm assuming it's a bullshit grifter

Even 8 years ago that was a safe view to hold.

Indeed. By 2016 I think I had moved from "wow tedx is junk but official Ted still has some good stuff" to "man even the official ones really are more hype than substance are are in dire need of quality control"
Post reply on HN