111–120 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Podcasts, concerts and books are something we review subjectively. Scientific articles one would expect would be reviewed objectively.
The data is objective but the quality of the research is subjective. For example if my sample size was 150 for some study that's subjective whether it was sufficient of size
When I was an undergrad in college, I helped design a study on the role of gender perception in expertise. We had a piece of text that the subjects (undergrads) would read and rate the expertise of. We had the same text but we randomized whether the name would be a commonly male name, a commonly female name, or initials. We also randomized if they'd watch a clip of men's sports beforehand (men's basketball), women's…
I imagine these biases swing in all sorts of directions depending on the context. Some are intuitive, many are not.
Very common for anyone who has ever spent time in academia. When I was still in grad school I noticed a trend in some major mathematical and CS journals where a lot of time it would be the same N people writing articles. This was driven home when my advisor told me "without such and such's name this paper has no chance of making it past review". Non-sense. However, for all the people that say "trust the science" this…
First of all, Knuth would never publish something "garbage" because his reputation would be on the line for everyone to read (forever).
Emperor's new clothes, while the rest need to be whiter than white and all that. These things happen because people are blinded by titles in a complex world with complex people.
It does not mean that reviewers lower their bar when assigned a paper from a famous professor, they just know a priori that the work will not be completely scam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence of this?
HN isn't a journal and so academic sources of evidence really are overkill. However, I'll throw you a bone. Go to your favorite major journal and start looking at the "conflicts of interest" and "grants" section. Once you take money from someone (except for NIST, in my experience) you're basically beholden to try your hardest to get the results they're looking for. Some scientists are moral enough to still return bad…
I disagee, you should backup your accusations or statements (unless widly accepted) with some reputable source. This person claimed that science was bought and paid for. Did they mean all of it? Or most? That's an insane accusation that requires evidence.
"Go to your favorite major journal and start looking at the "conflicts of interest" and "grants" section. Once you take money from someone (except for NIST, in my experience) you're basically beholden to try your hardest to get the results they're looking for"
This doesn't mean people falsely data. You're simply providing motive.
Everyone wants money, you are using greed to then claim mass fraud in science
That's why anonymous grading - and in scientific publishing, double-blind peer review is so important. It's part of the scientific progress just as much as replication, the attempt to re-produce results of a study post-publication by other groups (I wish papers' PDFs had a QR code to a Web page that said "double-blind review by x people, replicated by y groups" - the latter changes over time so it's better tracked externally).
I'm not sure what we're supposed to find astonishing about academics (like most of humanity) being vulnerable to reputation biases in their reasoning. As in, that would be the null hypothesis. It would be astonishing if most academics overcame it. EDIT: apparently, the size of the effect (factor of six more likely to be accepted if it came from a Nobel Prizewinner) is larger than anticipated.
Are people in general bias based on reputation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be possible to respond to your comment in earnest but ad hominem like this is more of a psychological cushion than an invitation to genuine discussion.
In what world is a daft attempt to psychoanalyze your interlocutor not ad hominem? My comment was snarky but not remotely playing the man. I meant it quite literally as a criticism of the thinking at issue. Economistic thought is riddled with confusion, and being surprised that scientists don't behave normatively (ie. not as those engaged in peer review are "supposed to") exhibits perfectly one variant of said confus…
I am astonished, in the same way I would be astonished to find out that papers that smell like fish are more likely to be accepted for publication at the majority of peer reviewed venues, and that the reason is that reviewers for those publications let their house cats stack rank the submissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old news from 2016 Jobseekers with Anglo-Saxon, easy to pronounce and common names are the most likely to get to the interview stage compared to candidates with unfamiliar names, according to research by the Australian National University published in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unusual-nam...
Surely they didn't mean actual Anglo-Saxon names, right? Those name are so challenging to the modern english-hearing ear. https://www.behindthename.com/names/usage/anglo-saxon
"No no no, within which historical context does it even make sense to ask this question? No? You see?"