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

Fraud, so much fraud

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#351

Post by jltsiren »

mlsu wrote: post #80
jimbokun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recommendation is for journals to place at least equal importance to publishing replications as for the original studies. Studies that have not been replicated should be published clearly marked as preliminary results. And then other scientists can pick those up and try to replicate them. And institutions need to give near equal weight to replications as to original research when deciding on promotions. Should be…

We can solve this at the grant level. Stipulate that for every new paper a group publishes from a grant, that group must also publish a replication of an existing finding. Publication would happen in pairs, so that every novel thing would be matched with a replication. Replications could be matched with grants: if you receive $100,000 grant, you'd get the $100,000 you need, plus another $100,000 which you could use t…

I think it would be better to have separate grants for replication studies. If something becomes a mandatory administrative burden, people will see it as low-prestige work and try to avoid it. And the kind of people who are good at novel research are often also good at ignoring duties they don't like, or completing them with a minimal effort if forced to.

But if there is separate funding for replication studies, it will become something people compete for. Some people will specialize on replicating others' work, and universities will pay attention, as they care about grant overheads.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#352

Post by themagician »

Why we would expect academia to be different from anything else these days? Fraud is how you get ahead. It is how you gain competitive advantage. When everyone is cheating, the only way to win is to cheat smarter. Fraud is the end result of the dreams that motivate people to be better than they. are.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#353

Post by Der_Einzige »

jimbokun wrote: post #47
neom wrote: post #11

I'm the furthest thing from a scientist unless you count 3,000 hours of PBS spacetime, but I love science and so science/academia fraud to me, feels kinda like the worst kinda fraud you can commit. Financial fraud can cause suicides and ruin in lives, sure, but I feel like academic fraud just sets the whole of humanity back? I also feel that through my life I've (maybe wrongly) placed a great deal of respect and trus…

I think the error is putting trust in scientists as people, instead of putting trust in science as a methodology. The methodology is designed to rely on trusting a process, not trusting individuals, to arrive at the truth. I guess it also reinforces the supreme importance of reproducibility. Seems like no research result should be taken seriously until at least one other scientist or group of scientists are able to r…

Science is an anarchic enterprise. There is no "one scientific method", and anyone telling you there is has something to sell to you (likely academic careerism). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#354

Post by Der_Einzige »

tensor wrote: post #148
wordsinaline wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This error really went viral during the pandemic and continues to this day. We're in for an Orwellian future if the public does not cultivate some skeptic impulse.

I'd say the public needs to develop some rational impulse, it already has plenty of skepitism to the point where people no longer trust science the methodology. Instead, they genuinely believe there is some alternative to finding the truth, and now simply believe the same old superstitions and bunk that people have prior to the scientific revolution. Speaking of Orwell, I don't think science comes into it. Rather, wh…

Critical thinking = the ability to be skeptical, literally it is the ability to criticize.

Great critical thinkers become lawyers, post modernist intellectuals, and other parts of the "talking" class of intellectuals. Unfortunately, it's far easier to talk shit than it is to build things. We've massively over-valued critical thinking over constructive thinking.

Most people want to dunk on science. Few people want to submit their own papers to conferences. Many people act like submitting papers is impossible for non-Ph.D's. We have a lack of constructive oriented thinking.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#355

Post by hansonkd »

jeremyjh wrote: post #348
hansonkd wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that it may become impossible to publish certain kinds of papers that are very well supported and valuable because no institution can afford the insurance. What type of research would that be? Just publish it online without insurance and everyone will treat it as it unverified and uninsured... separate from other research that is. Once the risk of the publishing research has gone down (i.e. reputable peers approve,…

If it is possible to advance your career by publishing uninsured research then we've just renamed the problem, although I do like the idea of adding this structure. Eventually there could be so much of it that it would become an accepted norm that your research isn't actually published in a journal until five years after you informally publish it. Other scientists in the field have to be abreast of the latest finding…

I see your point, the success of this would have to align with a change in the broader academia to only cite research from insured researchers.

The "organic" way this would happen is if there was a shift so that journals with insured research are far more valuable than uninsured research. Or perhaps if companies started suing researchers for negligence and fraud and recuperate costs if they used research that was later proved to be fraud.

In the literary world, anyone can publish a book, but a book from o'reilly caries with it a different level of authority and diligence then a self published book or blog post.

So the shift would have to be that your career can't advance without publishing a bonded and insured paper.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#356

Post by DigitalPaladin »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #346
testfoobar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar - when I was younger, I would never have suspected that a scientist was committing fraud. As I've gotten older, I understand that Charlie Munger's observation "“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” is applicable everywhere - including science. Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their caree…

> Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Publishing and citations can and are gamed, but is impact also gamed on a wide scale? That one seems harder to fake. Either a result is true and useful, or it's not.

Oh, yes. Repackaging and reframing of data - as mentioned in the OP article too - is a common practice for farming impact and article numbers too.

Why do novel research when you can just partner up with your friends, bring your data and combine with theirs for the umpteenth paper on the same thing, then wade into spamming down the submissions in every academic journal with impact in your field! If it published once in this journal, surely the 3rd recombination will too (and more often than not... it does.)

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#357

Post by dynamite-ready »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #287
antisthenes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similar - when I was younger, I would never have suspected that a scientist was committing fraud. Unfortunately many less bright people seem to interpret this as "never trust science", when in reality science is still the best way to push humanity forward and alleviate human suffering, _despite_ all the fraud and misaligned incentives that may influence it.

In defence of the "less bright people" or deplorables as others have called them - they are deeply suspicious of Science(tm) used as a cudgel. They intuit that some parasitic entity or entities has latched on to Science and is co-opting it for it's own gain to achieve it's own purposes which run counter to the interests of the people. The heavy handed Covid response and censorship is a prime example of that. The whol…

I think this comment comes across as slightly ignorant.

Many examples exist where a misguided belief in scientific 'facts' (usually a ropey hypothesis, with seemingly 'damning' evidence), or a straight up abuse of the scientific method, causes direct harm.

Suspicion is often based on facts or experience.

People have been infected with diseases without their knowledge.

People have been forced to undergo surgical procedures on the basis of spurious claims.

People have been burnt alive in buildings judged to be safe.

And look at Boeing.

No one has a problem with science itself per se. Everyone accepts the scientific method to be one of our greatest cultural achievements.

But whether one is "less bright", or super smart, we all know we as humans, are prone to mistakes, and are just as prone to bend the truth, to cover up those mistakes.

There's nothing plebeian about this form of suspicion. In fact, the scientific method relies on it (peer review).

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#358

Post by Der_Einzige »

lupire wrote: post #340
dyauspitr wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical pain is objective. Someone inflecting physical pain is evil unless it’s in self defense or common sense situations like a doctor performing surgery.

Physical pain is one of the most subjective concepts in the Universe.

Exactly. In fact, all things in the universe are subjective except exactly one thing, which is that all other things are subjective. This is epistemological monism, and it's the only coherent view.

Socrates got it. "I know that I know nothing" (else)

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#359

Post by ubj »

jltsiren wrote: post #351
mlsu wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can solve this at the grant level. Stipulate that for every new paper a group publishes from a grant, that group must also publish a replication of an existing finding. Publication would happen in pairs, so that every novel thing would be matched with a replication. Replications could be matched with grants: if you receive $100,000 grant, you'd get the $100,000 you need, plus another $100,000 which you could use t…

I think it would be better to have separate grants for replication studies. If something becomes a mandatory administrative burden, people will see it as low-prestige work and try to avoid it. And the kind of people who are good at novel research are often also good at ignoring duties they don't like, or completing them with a minimal effort if forced to. But if there is separate funding for replication studies, it w…

> But if there is separate funding for replication studies, it will become something people compete for.

It would need to be very good funding on par with what's offered for "novel research".

In addition, we would need increased prestige (e.g. awards, citations) for replicated studies as well for this to be effective. For many academics funding is merely a means to that end.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#360

Post by projektfu »

snowwrestler wrote: post #243
jimbokun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recommendation is for journals to place at least equal importance to publishing replications as for the original studies. Studies that have not been replicated should be published clearly marked as preliminary results. And then other scientists can pick those up and try to replicate them. And institutions need to give near equal weight to replications as to original research when deciding on promotions. Should be…

Replications are not very scientifically useful. If there were flaws in the design of the original experiment, replicating the experiment will also replicate the flaws. What we should aim for is confirmation : a different experiment that tests the underlying phenomenon that was the subject of the first paper.

Replications don't frequently get published but they do get attempted, because any decent researcher is going to replicate a result they rely on to build the next step. Unfortunately, you can get stuck in the mud as I did and be unable to replicate the prior findings. Is it technique or were the original results in error? We'll never know.

Building more results without replications is what caused the psychology crisis. Apparently every lab accepted the p<0.05 results or stated correlations of prior studies and just ran more studies until they got their own that was publishable. Since everyone "knew" that the prior result was true, like priming or whatever, they could conclude anything they wanted, because ex absurdum quodlibet.

Post reply on HN