Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination • Hacker News Board

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#191

Post by mike_hearn » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 11:57 AM UTC

tomnicholas1 wrote: post #176

mike_hearn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think so. I used to believe this too. Surely you try and build on a result which creates an implicit replication study, then your experiments don't work and the problem is discovered pretty quick. Hence, self correction. It often doesn't happen. The reasons seem to vary by field. We do see it in a few very hard fields like materials science. In the softer end of social sciences like anthropology, education or t…

Whilst I weakly agree with this characterisation, it's not at all fair or accurate to put epidemiology and climatology in the same category as your other examples. Yes they have some weaknesses in replication practices (especially for purely computational work), yes the feedback loop for self-correction can be slow, but it would be a mistake to conclude or imply that the major results of those fields are therefore un…

Disagree, those two fields are extremely unreliable. It takes a lot of things happening simultaneously to be scientific. Yes, those two do make testable predictions, sort of. But that isn't enough.

Modern (computational) epidemiology is rife with unscientific practices. They ignore data that shows a model was invalidated so the fact they make testable predictions isn't really useful. They also engage in a lot of circular reasoning, buggy coding and logical fallacies. During COVID I wrote a whole report on this topic for some politicians [1]. But the biggest issue is "A problem in theory" again - epidemiologists conflate fitting a curve in R with developing a hypothesis, so the field is overrun with overfit models that aren't based on any refinable theory of disease, just misuses of statistics. Even if you prove a paper's predictions were wrong it changes nothing because nothing built on it anyway.

The problem in climatology is that when the models don't fit the data they just change the data and claim victory, e.g.

September 2013: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientist...

June 2015: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17700

[1] https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#192

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 11:58 AM UTC

blackbear_ wrote: post #184

mike_hearn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't self correcting. This is a harmful meme that we need to collectively put in the trash can, as it's constantly used by academics to evade accountability. The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. The scientific method is a set of techniques that help people discover and report true things. But there are two huge problems with it: 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like…

This is unnecessarily cynical. > The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. You fell into the same trap by criticizing scientific institutions and the human spirit in an attempt to criticize the scientific method. > What exactly is the scientific method? What a ridiculous argument. What exactly is a hamburger? Just ask around and you will find that nobody agrees if a veggie burger should be consider…

[deleted]

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#193

Post by mike_hearn » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:00 PM UTC

anon-3988 wrote: post #178

mike_hearn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't self correcting. This is a harmful meme that we need to collectively put in the trash can, as it's constantly used by academics to evade accountability. The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. The scientific method is a set of techniques that help people discover and report true things. But there are two huge problems with it: 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like…

> Science isn't self correcting.... I am not sure what your proposal is? It seems to be the solution is only more science? This meme that science can't solve anything or is ineffective is also a meme that needs to die. Science is about the only thing that we have to make sense of the world. What else is there? > 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like there's a constitutional amendment that lays it ou…

Replicability isn't enough to be scientific. Many studies have invalid methodologies, so replicating them by following the same method just propagates wrongness and makes the problems worse. And if you don't follow the same method the original authors will claim it's not a replication study.

https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...

My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#194

Post by mike_hearn » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:11 PM UTC

blackbear_ wrote: post #184

mike_hearn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't self correcting. This is a harmful meme that we need to collectively put in the trash can, as it's constantly used by academics to evade accountability. The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. The scientific method is a set of techniques that help people discover and report true things. But there are two huge problems with it: 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like…

This is unnecessarily cynical. > The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. You fell into the same trap by criticizing scientific institutions and the human spirit in an attempt to criticize the scientific method. > What exactly is the scientific method? What a ridiculous argument. What exactly is a hamburger? Just ask around and you will find that nobody agrees if a veggie burger should be consider…

You're right that we don't need a universal definition of hamburger. That's because the government stays out of it, so private individuals can use things like Google Maps reviews to police a common sense definition of hamburger along with quality and other nuance.

If governments were forcing everyone to buy anything advertised as a hamburger no questions asked, then the definition of hamburger would matter a lot.

The devices on my desk are 99.9% the product of the private sector and owe nearly nothing to academia.

If people can't define it, then that seems to me like a valid criticism of the scientific method. You can't have institutions that claim to be doing science if they don't use the same definition of science as other people do.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#195

Post by Unified-Mentor » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:15 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#196

Post by zug_zug » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:17 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #9

It does seem like its way too easy to do this kind of fraud. The study seems extremely easy to replicate (no fancy equipment needed, just ask some people to proofread), and yet nobody did until now. Is there some way to change incentives to get people to try and replicate? Assign undergrads to replicate random research papers?

My proposal, once you complete your study, if you find a significant positive result you should be required (prior to publication) to describe your methodology in full, and have another lab (who you never have any contact with) blindly take your methodology, and repeat it (on video), and then do their own independent analysis of the data.

It's okay if it's $200k or so to do each of these, the university should pay. The point is if this methodology were applied people would have incentive to cheat anymore. It would also serve as an immediate replication.

Schools won't do this because they have a perverse incentive for big successes and quiet retractions. It's corruption all the way up.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#197

Post by randusername » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:19 PM UTC

blackbear_ wrote: post #184

mike_hearn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't self correcting. This is a harmful meme that we need to collectively put in the trash can, as it's constantly used by academics to evade accountability. The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. The scientific method is a set of techniques that help people discover and report true things. But there are two huge problems with it: 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like…

This is unnecessarily cynical. > The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. You fell into the same trap by criticizing scientific institutions and the human spirit in an attempt to criticize the scientific method. > What exactly is the scientific method? What a ridiculous argument. What exactly is a hamburger? Just ask around and you will find that nobody agrees if a veggie burger should be consider…

Science as a monolithic institution is a trap.

We ought to be able to trust the public with complex realities and contradictions. The scientific method and dogged researchers have brought us many wonderful things, but at the same time fraud happens and the layman might reasonably question to what extent the academy attracts fraudsters and to what extent it creates them.

If we can get over the absolutes then we can discuss policy changes.

Graduate student collective bargaining is one experiment; how can anyone blow a whistle on malfeasance with such an extraordinary and widening power imbalance?

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#198

Post by wisty » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:23 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #165

aktenlage wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take on the self correction is, that later research usually cannot be build on wrong results. So over the decades or centuries the correct results prevail.

You'd think so. I used to believe this too. Surely you try and build on a result which creates an implicit replication study, then your experiments don't work and the problem is discovered pretty quick. Hence, self correction. It often doesn't happen. The reasons seem to vary by field. We do see it in a few very hard fields like materials science. In the softer end of social sciences like anthropology, education or t…

> Sometimes outsiders notice what's happening but over time academia has built up a complex web of lore that protects them psychologically

The word you're looking for is "triangulation" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(social_science)

As long as you can find [1] a few [2] citations [3] that kind of all point in the same kind of direction then you're good!

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#199

Post by tremon » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:25 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #166

mike_hearn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't self correcting. This is a harmful meme that we need to collectively put in the trash can, as it's constantly used by academics to evade accountability. The core problem is people conflating science with Science™. The scientific method is a set of techniques that help people discover and report true things. But there are two huge problems with it: 1. What exactly is the scientific method? It's not like…

Yup Motte-and-bailey fallacy abound Nature (not the magazine) doesn't care if you published a peer-reviewed paper in a high-impact journal. It doesn't care if reviewer 2 thinks you need to quote his friend It also doesn't care that you think a dewormer works against a virus because it doesn't > What exactly is the scientific method? Trying and seeing what sticks. That's literally it. Of course publishing (and publici…

> Trying and seeing what sticks. That's literally it.

I'd like to add a readiness to abandon that which doesn't stick. Otherwise you end up with people going 'round in circles around a campfire.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#200

Post by lostlogin » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 12:26 PM UTC

paytonjjones wrote: post #42

lostlogin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electroconvulsive therapy uses much larger electric shocks but, administered safely by a clinic, is extremely safe, has relatively minor side effects Blame "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" for its inaccurate portrayal. YMMV. I’ve encountered people who have had ECT forced on them whilst inadequately sedated. They have been older/elderly but it would be a mistake assuming it’s always without causing harm.

That does sound rough. The initial shock, without sedation, could cause mild to moderate pain and would certainly be a scary experience. Even then, though, it's a far cry from being the antiquated mental lobotomy that many people wrongly assume it to be.

There are multiple accounts that describe severe pain and the New Zealand government has paid out compensation for the torture that it was. What was being done here was most definitely intended to be painful torture, so maybe isn’t a fair comparison with clinical ECT for actual treatment?

‘Bryon Nichol spent six months in the Lake Alice unit at the age of 12. He said he received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) many times, which was always unmodified, and without a muscle relaxing anaesthetic. "The nurses would come down and drag me upstairs. I was often so petrified that I soiled myself. They would put a mouthguard in my mouth and held me down while Dr Leeks gave me ECT. The ECT would give me vicious pains in my head and make me feel dizzy and as it continued the pain got worse. My arms and legs flailed about. It was absolute agony."’

And another:

‘Rangi Wickcliffe, 59, is another survivor of the Lake Alice unit. He was 10 when he was first given electric shock treatment. Dr Selwyn Leeks turned the machine on, the pain that you feel from the electricity surging through your head is indescribable. The scream that comes out of your mouth is also indescribable. "The terror was so intense that you lost all bowel movement." He said it felt like his bones would break.’

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/444800/abuse-in-care-inq...