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

Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

datacolada.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 274 posts

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#251

Post by rightnutwingjob »

tomnicholas1 wrote: post #215
mike_hearn wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 circ…

> The problem in climatology is that when the models don't fit the data they just change the data and claim victory That is... not remotely true, nor supported by either of the links you shared. (Nor by any cursory look at the state of the world today, with well-anticipated Himalayan glacial floods as front-page news.) You therefore appear to be leaping over the line from healthy skepticism to irrational conspiratori…

Disengaging isn’t part of the scientific method.

Disengaging is sticking your fingers in your ears and blurting out “la la la la I can’t hear you!”

And calling that a win.

The problem isn’t science, the problem is that there are adults with the maturity of a four year old acting as sciences hype man.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#252

Post by d0mine »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #103
d0mine wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself who benefits from equating "being mentioned in a file" and "having evidence this person is a pedophile"

The answer appears to be "people who spend more time on offense than defense". Not to say that tilting things in their direction is a good idea, but that's a pretty wide class of beneficiaries.

To be clear: the implied answer is "pedophiles". Pedophiles benefit the most from "being mentioned" == pedophile

Because obviously, there are many people mentioned in different contexts and it is unclear how many of them are pedophiles.

There are people who may disagree, but I'm from the generation who considers molesting children a serious crime--much much more serious than being mentioned in some email.

Ask yourself why nobody is being prosecuted.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#253

Post by dyauspitr »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #245
dyauspitr wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing scientific about psychology. There can be no science where everything is subjective.

Pain is entirely subjective, but we are pretty sure it exists, and there is a lot of science around pain management.

Until you have an objective way of measuring pain in a subject it’s not truly scientific. Hence the endless stream of opioid users lying at the hospital to get their fix.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#254

Post by rightnutwingjob »

mike_hearn wrote: post #230
tomnicholas1 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem in climatology is that when the models don't fit the data they just change the data and claim victory That is... not remotely true, nor supported by either of the links you shared. (Nor by any cursory look at the state of the world today, with well-anticipated Himalayan glacial floods as front-page news.) You therefore appear to be leaping over the line from healthy skepticism to irrational conspiratori…

Feel free to not engage, but for anyone reading the Nepal flash flood was caused by bedrock giving way, which isn't climate related. https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2026/08/28/new-satellite-i... The two links I give show the problem in action. In 2013 the IPCC was concerned because temperatures had gone sideways for a decade. Der Spiegel's first sentence is "Data shows global temperatures aren't rising the way clim…

Shoosh. And if you won’t shoosh yourself, a handful of The True Adherents Of The Science will down vote you.

Because Down Votes Are Truth.

And that, ladies n gennelman, is How Science Works.

That’s how we end up with Jason Arday: Up Votes.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#255

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

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…

> The very fact that fraud is identified is clear evidence that is is not true

That's not merely enough, you need a clear trend that the rate of fraud discovery is greater than the rate of fraud production, not just that "some cases are found out". Good luck with that, since it's by definition not measurable.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#256

Post by mike_hearn »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #241
mike_hearn wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might not care even then. Journalism is an interesting case study. Their revenues went into sharp decline around the start of the century, dropping by more than 50% in some cases. Concurrently polls showed trust in journalism was plummeting, that people were tuning out because they felt that what they read wasn't reliable. Journalism didn't solve this problem by rebuilding trust and their audience. Instead they…

News reporting and journalism has always mostly been a for-profit enterprise. And no matter what business model one might choose (ads, subs, charity, etc) there will be perverse incentives working in conflict with pure truth seeking and newsworthiness. Audience capture, pleasing advertisers, the politics/interests of the owners, etc. I'm sure non-profit sponsorship has it's own issues, but I don't think those issues…

I think ads were better because everyone was aware of the conflict of interest issues and took steps to manage it. They admitted it could be an issue and would have internal firewalls where ad sales weren't allowed to talk to the journalists, things like that. Advertisers accepted it because their goal wasn't to manipulate news reporting.

The problem with the "philanthropic" funding is not only is there no firewall, but it's explicitly pay-to-play agenda pushing. So that culture of keeping revenue and news separated has vanished without the public being made aware of it.

The right wing are saying things like, journalism is fake because they're just pushing a left wing agenda for money. That's the claim that delegitimizes journalism. But it turns out that the rightists are correct and that's exactly what journalists are doing, so it's hardly their fault that mistrust was created and cultivated. You should mistrust people who mislead you about their agenda, and if you go to the AP website today and look at some random article paid for by these grants there's no mention of where the funding comes from. Actually you get a popup begging for donations, saying that because the AP is a non-profit it's extra trustworthy.

If they want to regain trust, a good start would be by refusing to accept money for stories, relabelling all the stories where they did that, and then pay for journalism purely out of subscription revenues or ads brokered through exchanges (i.e. where the advertiser doesn't have any contact with the publishers).

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#257

Post by rightnutwingjob »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #237
mike_hearn wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resul…

>My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct. A tangential proposal - individuals (not orgs) should offer to upfront fund ( in lump sum) promising researchers for life. That way a researcher is not worried about losing his livelihood. I suspect this may already be happening in a few circles without much fanfare.

Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better?

If that’s your criteria, then shouldn’t said funding go to an individual scientist who has no lab, no staff, no PhD candidates, and no access to the internet or existing research.

Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#258

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

FranklinMaillot wrote: post #189
Aurornis wrote: post #6

Dan Ariely has a long history of controversies and studies with falsified data. He wrote 3 popular books and gained a lot of fame before others started uncovering the problems in his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely It’s amazing that problems with his studies are still being uncovered. Equally amazing that Duke still maintains a relationship with him after so many problems have been identified with hi…

Beautifully ironic that "Dishonesty and ethics" is listed as one of his research fields.

In person immersion is a great way to research!

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#259

Post by a123b456c »

mike_hearn wrote: post #236
anthonyrstevens wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square your position with all the ... self corrections ... that have happened in science in the last, oh, 500 years or so?

Most of the problems are with academic fields that were barely funded before WW2.

Your comment claims that academics do not correct other academics.

Your comment appears on a post in which, literally, academics are correcting other academics.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#260

Post by rightnutwingjob »

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…

Do you mind if nature also considers it a lice and mite control agent?

Or are you planning on continuing to call it a “dewormer”.

Completely factual vs factually complete.

Post reply on HN