False claims in a widely-cited paper • Hacker News Board

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#41

Post by jasonfarnon » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

aloha2436 wrote: post #37

stinkbeetle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean when was it again? I don't understand your questions or how they relate to what I wrote.

They are insinuating that the consensus you're talking about never existed as you have described it.

If anything, I think the Internet has made it easier to expose bad science. People like Andrew Gellman and websites like pubpeer have had a huge impact on the practice of the social sciences (psychology especially) just using blogs. In the past he would have been ignored. Journals and authors do their best to ignore, dismiss, and discredit him now. Having a direct voice to the public is what saves him.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#42

Post by qsi » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:45 AM UTC

cwillu wrote: post #15

qsi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ooops, sorry... I cannot edit the URL in the submission. I should have checked.

You can always send a short polite email to hn@ycombinator.com with corrections you can't make yourself

I did, thanks for the suggestion.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#43

Post by Analemma_ » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:46 AM UTC

The consequences here don’t seem all that bad, it’s just a silly management fad. By contrast, “Growth in a Time of Debt” from Reinhardt and Rogoff steered multiple national governments into pointless self-destructive and immiserating austerity, despite being equally bunk, and none of the authors ever saw any consequences for that either. You can’t even blame that one on “management science”, it was a straight macroeconomics paper.

There’s no accountability for junk science, especially if it props up the political status quo.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#44

Post by esseph » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC

jasonfarnon wrote: post #41

aloha2436 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are insinuating that the consensus you're talking about never existed as you have described it.

If anything, I think the Internet has made it easier to expose bad science. People like Andrew Gellman and websites like pubpeer have had a huge impact on the practice of the social sciences (psychology especially) just using blogs. In the past he would have been ignored. Journals and authors do their best to ignore, dismiss, and discredit him now. Having a direct voice to the public is what saves him.

Nobody is looking at that, they're watching TikTok and ReelShorts

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#45

Post by kmaitreys » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:50 AM UTC

chromacity wrote: post #26

lotsofpulp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always assumed the further away from math and physics a field is, the higher the probability of any given “research” to be false. Even biology, I might give 50% odds at best, but that is due to the difficulty of observing and measuring in that field. Anything past biology might as well be as fiction due to how easy it is to come up with whatever results you want.

I think that theoretical math and physics are special, but probably not in the way you assume. It's just that there isn't a whole lot of grant money, prestige, or influence associated with them (unless you accomplish something truly exceptional). Computer science is very close to math and should be even easier to verify, but there's plenty of dubious results published every year, simply because it's more profitable t…

Great take. I have seen the discussion on this often gets turned into a hard vs soft science debate where in actuality it's just simply about money.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#46

Post by hnburnsy » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:51 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #6

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #4

So we're firmly in the era of few people caring about few things now aren't we.

I have always assumed the further away from math and physics a field is, the higher the probability of any given “research” to be false. Even biology, I might give 50% odds at best, but that is due to the difficulty of observing and measuring in that field. Anything past biology might as well be as fiction due to how easy it is to come up with whatever results you want.

  If it doesn't have "science" in the name, it's a science 
  If it has the suffix "logy", it's a semi-science
  If it has the word "science", it's not

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#47

Post by malshe » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:51 AM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #43

The consequences here don’t seem all that bad, it’s just a silly management fad. By contrast, “Growth in a Time of Debt” from Reinhardt and Rogoff steered multiple national governments into pointless self-destructive and immiserating austerity, despite being equally bunk, and none of the authors ever saw any consequences for that either. You can’t even blame that one on “management science”, it was a straight macroec…

That paper wasn’t even peer reviewed. If I remember it correctly it was published in the AER Papers and Proceedings.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#48

Post by komali2 » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:55 AM UTC

banana_sandwich wrote: post #28

“Professionals” in traffic engineering still religiously cling to “standards” that are largely based on BS served up by auto companies pre 1940. Many such cases of this, it seems.

At least your traffic engineers set standards. In Taiwan often the standards come straight from the legislative yuan, aka just vibes laws from people who are driven around in private cars their whole lives.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#49

Post by qsera » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 2:56 AM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #43

The consequences here don’t seem all that bad, it’s just a silly management fad. By contrast, “Growth in a Time of Debt” from Reinhardt and Rogoff steered multiple national governments into pointless self-destructive and immiserating austerity, despite being equally bunk, and none of the authors ever saw any consequences for that either. You can’t even blame that one on “management science”, it was a straight macroec…

political? what about business? If junk science can help a huge market to keep selling, I think it will be the biggest blocker.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#50

Post by andrewjf » Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 3:00 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #30

andrewjf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really root cause in everything, isn't it? - The consolidation of media (& social media in general) is about making money from outrage (emotions) - Anti Vax (& other) movements is about people only receptive to people saying what they already feel (feelings) - Accountability is gone because people care about being on the winning team and being "right". Reason, Logic, and Evidence seems completely replaced by p…

>The consolidation of media (& social media in general) is about making money from outrage (emotions) I think it is the exact opposite. Now that anyone in the world can create and share "media", professionals trying to make high brow media cannot compete with the emotional reaction slop that the other 8 billion people put out. Look at what is popular on Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, TikTok, and now even the federal US go…

Fair point! Makes complete sense.

But I wouldn't exactly call "professionals trying to make high brow media" exclusive alternative to Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, TikTok.

A lot of the propaganda (and sane washing) is coming from mass media, too. I feel like the only "legit" media outlets are like Reuters, AP, and some international ones, I guess.