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

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#151

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

ycombinete wrote: post #132
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…

Business school writing frequently smells like Post hoc rationalisation to me (with some confirmation bias mixed in).

I took one class in the business department while I was in university and it felt like basically "business" anthropology without any of the reflection that the field of anthropology has done about its own research and the limits/biases of their claims.

The "scholarly" aspect and the standards were comical compared to other fields (even compared to some standards in other fields that I consider pretty suspect).

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#152

Post by jkman »

pjdesno wrote: post #63

Are there any factual allegations on that page? All I could find was "the method described in the paper is not the method the authors actually used", without any elaboration. I'll add that the reaction of most of academia will be "It's in a management journal - of course it's nonsense."

It is elaborated on in the first linked article in this one, under the section "Research Integrity Offices (Part 1)".

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#153

Post by stinkbeetle »

TheDong wrote: post #56
stinkbeetle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh that's not new. It's not that outrage or unfounded opinions were new, or the masses were never fooled or taken advantage of before. It's that the mechanism for social consensus is rapidly shifting. > I remember when I was a teenager there were lawsuits about trying to teach creationism in school. My entire life conservatives have been arguing against climate change. And yet the consensus about climate change and…

60-70% for a politician or political position is high. For believing in reality it's low. If you asked "Do cigarettes contribute to lung cancer", you'd expect 95%+. Our evidence for climate change is on-par with that, and yet the rich have run a wildly successful campaign to cast doubt on it for years. If people really appreciated the gravity of it, we would not have trump, a demonstrably anti-climate president who h…

> If you asked "Do cigarettes contribute to lung cancer", you'd expect 95%+. Our evidence for climate change is on-par with that, and yet the rich have run a wildly successful campaign to cast doubt on it for years.

By the ruling class, yes of course. Not society at large. Citzens overwhelmingly favor action. The numbers don't lie.

Unfortunately people have been fooled into ignoring reality and this emotion and outrage being used to make them believe that it's not politically possible, and it's their fellow citizens who are to blame. That's probably the biggest and most insidious part of the climate disinformation campaign.

> If people really appreciated the gravity of it, we would not have trump, a demonstrably anti-climate president who has rolled back green policies and slowed decarbonization, and even ran on it. Apparently spiting the "other side" is more important than our planet's long term habitability.

Yes absolutely the current state of politics is most assuredly a result of western society's transition from building consensus on reason to building consensus on feelings.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#154

Post by stinkbeetle »

tombert wrote: post #57
stinkbeetle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh that's not new. It's not that outrage or unfounded opinions were new, or the masses were never fooled or taken advantage of before. It's that the mechanism for social consensus is rapidly shifting. > I remember when I was a teenager there were lawsuits about trying to teach creationism in school. My entire life conservatives have been arguing against climate change. And yet the consensus about climate change and…

We used to burn women to death because they were accused of being witches. I don't think this was because there was a lot of reason and evidence when they were doing this. I don't think it's unique to the people of today that people in groups do dumb emotional shit. That's kind of the point of Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger".

> We used to burn women to death because they were accused of being witches.

Not right before now though, right? You see how that's not an argument? Because I didn't say western society had indefinitely been that way before.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#155

Post by stinkbeetle »

hunter-gatherer wrote: post #40
stinkbeetle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be strange and misguided because I didn't talk about a consensus, I was talking about a mechanism for consensus. And consensus has existed many times on many issues now, and then.

Right, the mechanism you mentioned, reason, never existed. That's how I read their comment anyways.

Yes I have noticed people get extremely emotional and upset at the suggestion that not everything in society may be monotonically improving.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#156

Post by WalterBright »

WalterBright wrote: post #95
tovej wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 right is what's causing inequality If people have rights, then they are unequal. If they have no rights, they are equal.

For example, people have a right to create wealth. To make people equal, it is necessary to take that right away.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#157

Post by stinkbeetle »

Pay08 wrote: post #107
jasonfarnon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was this golden age of western civilization again? like 10 years ago, are you suggesting we were in this golden age? I mean, the paper this link is discussing is from 2014, so I guess it was more like 15 years ago that the golden age sunsetted?

The golden age of western civilisation was n - 5 years ago, where n is the year the speaker got their first job.

The speaker, as in the person who started talking about golden ages? Well it surely if they think there was a golden age it couldn't be now, what with all the late stage capitalism and rising phobias and supremacies and people voting the incorrect people into office or countries out of unions.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#158

Post by SanjayMehta »

tovej wrote: post #134
SanjayMehta wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's social studies, not science.

Social studies is a school subject, that's irrelevant. You really think sociology is not a science then? Sociologists do way more rigorous statistics than physicists do. They have to, because physical sciences deal with deterministic objects, while social sciences deal with nondeterministic subjects.

Social Studies practitioners' surveys, for which they use statistics, depend heavily on the wording of the questionnaire.

https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks

It's not a science.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#159

Post by komali2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #156
WalterBright wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the right is what's causing inequality If people have rights, then they are unequal. If they have no rights, they are equal.

For example, people have a right to create wealth. To make people equal, it is necessary to take that right away.

Hey again, Walter, we always seem to find eachother in these comment threads.

The Soviet Union didn't create wealth? It put a man in space before the USA - that took "wealth" by some definition of the word, perhaps just not "personal wealth."

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#160

Post by chermi »

gus_massa wrote: post #133
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...

This is caused by a misunderstanding of what a journal is. It's just a curated publication, not the ultimate source of truth. Nobody should go and put a "retracted" stamp over "Principia Mathematica", or the "Special Relativity" paper of Einstein. Both are wrong, we know. In this cases cases, you may continue citing them or using them as an approximation. In some other cases they are slowly forgotten and fade away. I…

"Nobody should go and put a "retracted" stamp over "Principia Mathematica", or the "Special Relativity" paper of Einstein. Both are wrong, we know."

What does that have to do with this situation? I'm honestly trying to figure out your chain of thought. Do you think the future should have an impact on the present somehow? The fraud in the op post happened at the time of publication. Oh and btw. No fraud in the two you cited. Unless you figured out how to apply future to present. In which case they probably would've published much better papers, somehow.

Post reply on HN