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

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#121

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

throw310822 wrote: post #115
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

you also said

>we should be highly skeptical of any finding that claims an agreements between facts and ethical values

And I'm saying that's silly because you should hold all claims in equal skepticism. Just because something contains an ideological basis does not, in itself, make it more or less correct.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#122

Post by asplake »

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…

I had the privilege last night of attending a lecture given by Prof Sir John Kay (Obliquity, Radical Uncertainty, etc). He was scathing on two points: 1) the way the world changed in the 1970s from management as responsibility to leadership as prize, and 2) the abject failure of business schools to develop a serious body of knowledge. Taken together, business schools have become cash cows for universities while still being held in disdain by academia. This from the first dean of Oxford's Said Business School.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#123

Post by bregma »

Beestie wrote: post #113

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…

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

But... that's exactly what Big Academia doesn't want you to know.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#124

Post by pas »

jltsiren wrote: post #120
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…

They could at least send the paper with the reported problems out to a new set of referees.

And just as they decided to take responsibility for publishing, they can take responsibility after a similar review for retraction (or issuing an errata or whatever fancy way they want to signal the result of the process).

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#125

Post by pas »

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…

What's undergrad business faculty? The people who teach undergrads or undergrad TAs?

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#126

Post by AdamN »

asplake wrote: post #122
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…

I had the privilege last night of attending a lecture given by Prof Sir John Kay (Obliquity, Radical Uncertainty, etc). He was scathing on two points: 1) the way the world changed in the 1970s from management as responsibility to leadership as prize, and 2) the abject failure of business schools to develop a serious body of knowledge. Taken together, business schools have become cash cows for universities while still…

There was tremendous resistance to setting up that school both because of where the money came from but more so because of the possibility that the school would not actually be academic but more 'professional' instead. I can't comment on the former as it seems mostly just xenophobic but maybe there are other angles there. The latter is definitely a concern though.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#127

Post by pas »

Beestie wrote: post #113

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…

the hypothesis seems pretty important and interesting, even if hard to study (and hard to classify companies, and sustainability, way too many degrees of freedom, so it would need preregistration, etc)

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#128

Post by mgkuhn »

I thought the proper way to correct questionable results is to conduct and publish a follow-up study that independently looks at the same question with better data and better methodology. And wait until multiple independent teams have done the same. And then write a meta-analysis on the emerging pool of independent papers.

That's how scientific consent is normally formed, at least in rigorous disciplines like experimental physics or medicine. A single paper in the end is going to be just a single data point in any such meta-analysis study.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#129

Post by fabian2k »

mgkuhn wrote: post #128

I thought the proper way to correct questionable results is to conduct and publish a follow-up study that independently looks at the same question with better data and better methodology. And wait until multiple independent teams have done the same. And then write a meta-analysis on the emerging pool of independent papers. That's how scientific consent is normally formed, at least in rigorous disciplines like experim…

It depends on whether the paper is simply wrong for some reason, or if there is either fraud or a fundamental mistake in the procedure. But in general you're right, retractions are not the way to handle most scientific disputes.

Your point about consensus unfortunately doesn't quite work in cases like this were the people using the paper are not scientists. They're not continuing work in the same area, people are using this paper to support their arguments.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#130

Post by mezyt »

bonesss wrote: post #85
rectang wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle is the adage for our age: > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

I’m cautiously optimistic that LLMs have a role in addressing that asymmetry to the side of good faith actors. Gish galloping bad faith trolls aren’t new. LLMs shape their BS into fluffy BS that isn’t particularly more effective. But now, We Have The Technology, refuting a pile of poo semi-accurately should be cheap (or at least getting cheaper). I don’t need an LLM on my phone that can do tax law in Georgia the coun…

I once copy pasted a spam email in https://www.bullshitremover.com/ and it simply returned "bullshit".
Post reply on HN