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

False claims in a widely-cited paper

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#111

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

throw310822 wrote: post #110

There's a simple rule of thumb that seems obvious to me but is widely ignored: we should be highly skeptical of any finding that claims an agreements between facts and ethical values- or between what is and what we think should be. Reality is absolutely orthogonal to our values, which makes any coincidence between the two extremely suspicious.

>Reality is absolutely orthogonal to our values...

what? that's nonsense. Not everybody's values are the same, for one thing. Especially as society has become more and more international.

You should be equally skeptical of any result until proper evidence is presented and verified. Values should have no bearing either way on empirical truth-claims.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#112

Post by InkCanon »

bradley13 wrote: post #86

Some years ago, my institution (primarily a teaching college) decided it needed an additional accreditation. The organization they went with requires faculty to publish. Including our undergrad business faculty. We all know that "publish or perish" is stupid. The premier example of Goodhart's Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Why can't our highly paid administration understand th…

I think a more useful version of the law is

"Any good measure requires a good person."

For example, a good measure of research is to have an intelligent faculty member or members read it and decide if it's good. Converting it to a mechanical calculation is fundamentally bad.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#113

Post by Beestie »

Stopped reading not long after noticing the title of the paper in question.

The very hypothesis is laughable. It is completely irrelevant if the hypothesis is supported or not.

That paper is like flypaper for anyone seeking affirmation of sustainability policies.

I could write a paper tomorrow claiming that [insert conspiracy theory here] is absolutely true and why Big [insert hated industry here] doesn't want you to know the truth and it would be cited until the earth crashes into the sun.

It's not about the truth anymore. It's about opinion validation.

I could write a paper about that but wouldn't hold my breath on getting any cites.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#114

Post by smcin »

arjie wrote: post #53

There's this 'criterion of embarrassment' / 'cui bono' sort of standard[0] that really helps judge these things. So many people perform science that seems to always confirm the positions they've held. All the "society is terrible today" people like to quote LendingClub's "70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck" without knowing it's LendingClub content marketing. The snail darter guy happened to find a novel speci…

On the study of management in the military, what does West Point think of HBS, and v.v.? (for example, were the fictitious body counts in the Vietnam War comparable/earlier/later than civilian management doing dubious things with metrics/OKRs?)

Alternatively, what is the most heterodox institute studying management, esp. in the military?

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#115

Post by throw310822 »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #111
throw310822 wrote: post #110

There's a simple rule of thumb that seems obvious to me but is widely ignored: we should be highly skeptical of any finding that claims an agreements between facts and ethical values- or between what is and what we think should be. Reality is absolutely orthogonal to our values, which makes any coincidence between the two extremely suspicious.

>Reality is absolutely orthogonal to our values... what? that's nonsense. Not everybody's values are the same, for one thing. Especially as society has become more and more international. You should be equally skeptical of any result until proper evidence is presented and verified. Values should have no bearing either way on empirical truth-claims.

Exactly, you're saying the exact same thing that I am. "Orthogonal" means independent, unrelated. This is why coincidence is very suspicious, because it's statistically very improbable.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#116

Post by Lionga »

fergie wrote: post #104

As somebody who has spent a bit of time in academia, I have often been slightly alarmed by some of the research (and opinon) that comes out of business schools. One thing is that it is often unsubstantiated and just plain wrong, another is that it often seems like the authors kind of know it, almost as if they are intentionally pandering to a lowbrow/midwit audience, and they expect everybody else to be in on the gam…

Not at all limited to business schools

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#117

Post by don_esteban »

tovej wrote: post #80
shrubby wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least now the masks (and Musks) are off. It was never between the left and the right or any other false dichotomies, but always between the Epstein-class and the actual human beings. The question now is that do the normal people realize and act on the fact that the elevator to Epstein class was never working. Or even better, they don't want to become the zillionaire class husk of a human.

You say it's not left v. right, but it sure sounds like you think the right is what's causing inequality. Which I agree with.

The current fight is within the Eppstein class (both right and left elites), between the old money (Wall Street) and new money (techno-fascists/feudalists of Silicon Valley).

The rabble is just taken for the ride, fooled by left vs right show and exploited along the way.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#120

Post by jltsiren »

anshulbasia27 wrote: post #108

The correction policy is the tell. If your journal's correction process requires the person who was wrong to initiate it, you haven't built a correction processs you've built a complaint resolution process that defaults to 'no complaint, no problem.' Medicine figured this out the hard way after thalidomide. Somehow management academia looked at that history and decided it didn't apply to them...

The policy is what you would expect from a journal that is effectively run by volunteers. While the publisher has paid employees, the editorial board in charge of the journal itself seems to consist of volunteers.

When you have a volunteer organization, the impact on people's personal lives is one of the main factors driving decisions. You try to avoid getting involved in somebody else's controversies, as the impact is almost always negative.

From that perspective, the policy seems clear. The authors are responsible for their papers. If someone else claims that a paper should be corrected, they are free to write a paper of their own. That way no volunteer has to take responsibility for someone else's claims.

Post reply on HN