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

281–290 of 290 posts

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#281

Post by etiennebausson »

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.

He IS a specialist.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#282

Post by raverbashing »

rightnutwingjob wrote: post #260
raverbashing wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why wouldn't I agree

You might be confusing me with your friends that failed HS biology

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#283

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

mike_hearn wrote: post #279
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the theory is that advertising makes conflicts of interest more transparent, I don't think I agree. Advertisers can be stakeholders across diverse ranges of concerns - conflicts of interest are often indirect. They can influence what doesn't get written, as much as what does. The real bad actors can even just disguise ads as content. We still need to have some basic trust that institutions are respecting firewalls…

Yes, it's true. No more firewalls. Go read the article I originally linked, here it is again: https://apnews.com/article/science-business-arts-and-enterta... Some key paragraphs are: > The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants. > The grant is…

This is a puff piece. They are always a bit icky, but they're common and I don't think you'll find any outlet of renown that doesn't succumb to these from time to time.

In this case, it reads like their way of stroking their benefactors egos a bit, but without promising them anything real in return.

FTA: "AP often needs to educate funders upon first approach, explaining the company’s worldwide reach and mission to report independently. AP accepts money to cover certain areas but without strings attached; the funders have no influence on the stories that are done, Carovillano said."

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#284

Post by sharts »

mike_hearn wrote: post #147
jarenmf wrote: post #133

Science is self-correcting, but sometimes, the correction mechanism it is very slow and inconsequential enough that people are incentivized to just publish anything. Peer review is merely a quality check—and not a very good one. Just the other day, I ran into a paper in my field that claims to have solved a central problem that scientists have been working on for 50 years, single-authored, using some fancy mathematic…

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…

Indeed. “Science” is modern religion.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#285

Post by iammjm »

bluGill wrote: post #190
iammjm wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking THE sex trafficker pimp extraordinaire about the contact data of a “redhead”… I guess you CAN read this whole interaction as benevolent if you squint hard enough to the point that the nature of this guy’s transactions with people becomes invisible

I have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty". (even proven guilty doesn't mean guilty, but by that time so much evidence has been examined that odds are high enough to finally say guilty). All too often somebody pushes only evidence that supports their bias without full care for the full truth. I agree it looks pretty bad, but I have not seen all the evidence and thus I must hold out the possibility he is innoce…

That’s fair. I just fear the justice system or whatever it should be to decide what the “truth” is might not be up to the task or not that interested in truth anymore. Like for example there’s this one person that everybody in the world knows who bragged about doing despicable things and there’s dozens of women who for years have been accusing him of doing similarly despicable or worse things to them, but it doesn’t matter because he’s innocent until proven guilty… So at some point I just allow myself to draw my own conclusions

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#286

Post by esalman »

CrazyStat wrote: post #185
esalman wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does not matter if Jesus did in fact born from a virgin mother, it is not repeatable, and therefore not scientific https://www.newscientist.com/article/1837276-the-boy-whose-b...

Even better, from the BMJ christmas edition https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7102 > Around 0.5% of women consistently affirmed their status as virgins and did not use assisted reproductive technology, yet reported virgin births.

Not necessarily.

The article I linked reported that the white blood cell DNA of the child did not contain Y chromosome.

That's different than conducting a survey.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#287

Post by Quekid5 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #169
Quekid5 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite what you're asking, but pre-registration does alleviate e.g. p-hacking and such without the need for multiple teams. It doesn't do much for outright fraud, but still...

Only if the study matches its pre-registration and someone is checking that. Which it turns out, they often don't. https://www.compare-trials.org/

That's a fair point. Ultimately, incentives are all screwy at the moment.

Gotta tie some actual prestige/shame to not following up.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#288

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

rightnutwingjob wrote: post #257
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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

Most organizations are made of of very mediocre (or political) individuals, and when it comes to wrong (or political) decisions individuals cannot be held responsible, that how orgs deflect responsibility.

On the hand when an individual (often wealthy) or a bunch of them decide to fund something (often from his own pocket), they know what they are doing and are personally willing to bear the risk.

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

I should have been more nuanced.

Org = generally public orgs where the people in the org do not have a stake beyond their jobs in the org. Example: govt. As an exception to this rule there can be (private) orgs of very competent people who deploy they own money to get things done, including research.

(p.s - I realize that I cannot delve into all all nuances with a few sentences I put here, but hopefully you get the drift)

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#289

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

lelanthran wrote: post #127
ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you don't follow the field: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/meditation-and-mindfulness-...

> Meditation and mindfulness practices may have a variety of health benefits and may help people improve the quality of their lives. Recent studies have investigated if meditation or mindfulness helps people manage anxiety, stress, depression, pain, or symptoms related to withdrawal from nicotine, alcohol, or opioids. > Other studies have looked at the effects of meditation or mindfulness on weight control or sleep q…

I recommend to skip the intro and go to specific articles.

Re: Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

#290

Post by enaaem »

lazide wrote: post #183
enaaem wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation of [2] is crazy. Because both the author of [2] and the people using Ferguson’s model are wrong. And the author's advice in one of the last paragraphs of we just need better programmers is also wrong. The issue is that pandemics are extremely fat-tailed in terms of fatalities [3]. You need to collect a shit tons of data to estimate any reliable parameters and no one has time for that. The only thing you…

Western countries won’t let an expert make the call, because there hasn’t been recent enough pain and suffering to put it in recent memory the necessity for it. After all, why suffer if it isn’t actually necessary? Asia had recent experience with the first SARS, which had very real and extremely high fatality rates, so for them it was a relatively easy (not an easy) call. For the west, when was the last time we had a…

Considering the prosecution of Fauci, which does not happen anywhere else, I don't think America is ready for the next pandemic.
Post reply on HN