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

571–580 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#571

Post by [deleted] »

_heimdall wrote: post #332
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…

The fact that it can still be considered science when intentional fraud is involved is a huge problem itself.

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#572

Post by [deleted] »

nostrademons wrote: post #505
chasd00 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My employer of 750k people made it very clear, upload proof of vaccination or be fired. That’s a fact.

That was GP's point. Being fired != being prevented from working. You are still free to get a job at a different employer that has different policies.

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#573

Post by booleandilemma »

nostrademons wrote: post #505
chasd00 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My employer of 750k people made it very clear, upload proof of vaccination or be fired. That’s a fact.

That was GP's point. Being fired != being prevented from working. You are still free to get a job at a different employer that has different policies.

You're splitting hairs. If people didn't get vaccinated during covid they became social pariahs. People were literally calling for their deaths.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#574

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

klenwell wrote: post #341
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…

I think my favorite Simpsons gag is the episode where Lisa enlists a scientist (voiced by Stephen Jay Gould) to run tests to debunk some angel bones that were found at a construction site. In the middle of the episode, the scientist bicycles up to report, dramatically, that the tests "were inconclusive". In the end, it's revealed that the bones were a fraud concocted by some mall developers to promote their new mall.…

Reminds me of this quote:

> "The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best -and therefore never scrutinize or question."

-Stephen Jay Gould

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#575

Post by [deleted] »

griffzhowl wrote: post #473
neura wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even your description sounds like a startup, to me. There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime). Recruiting the top talent. Urgency (beat everybody else to the punch). Outsourcing the building of infrastructure while you focus on the unique/hard part. I'm not seeing how you can't see the parallels with startups.

In that case any high-priority military intelligence project is "like a startup". Why say that it's run like a startup as opposed to just saying it was run like a high-priority military-intelligence project? The GP suggested that a reason for the success of the Manhattan project was that it was run like a startup, whereas it seems more illuminating to point out that it was a massively funded military project in warti…

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#576

Post by sobkas »

nativeit wrote: post #543
fluoridation wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it's difficult to tell if the subplot makes sense on purpose, or if the writers just wanted to make a joke and it just happened to end up making sense. I don't think I had ever put the three scenes together before now.

One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and…

> One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and academic heft, and I don’t doubt for a moment that there was full intention with both the joke itself, and the choice to leave the character’s motivations ambiguous.

Not everything, for example I read somewhere that chess "fight" in Tween Peaks was random and didn't adhere to chess rules because no one really paid attention to record or follow moves.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#578

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #262
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not enough to most people. And if it is enough for others, then it is probably because they were fortunate enough to fall back on something better.

> That is not enough to most people. You absolutely nail the most profound pathology of our time. Being a decent, honest, smart, hardworking person is just "not enough" any more. We've created a normatively criminal society.

> Being a decent, honest, smart, hardworking person is just "not enough" any more.

Indeed. People want to be able to own a home and/or raise a family, too.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#579

Post by [deleted] »

Upvoter33 wrote: post #399
almostgotcaught wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their careers lol arguably? i would bet my generous, non-academia, industry salary for the next 10 years, that there's not a single academic with a citation count over say ... 50k (ostensibly the most successful academic) that isn't gaming the system. - signed someone who got their phd at "prestigous" uni under a guy with >100k citations

There clearly are single examples here and you would lose this bet.

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#580

Post by jimmydorry »

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…

Would this not incentivise the forming of groups that replicate each others work. If you're already committing wilful fraud on your own papers, why wouldn't you commit a bit more for another researcher willing to do the same for you? With >2 parties, it won't be immediately obvious that this trading has occured.
Post reply on HN