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

Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

stanforddaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#61

Post by wolverine876 »

teh_infallible wrote: post #48
wolverine876 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a far less scientific, and true, conclusion than what was in the papers. From the article: > Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database.

If retractions are exceedingly rare, it could imply that, once published, fraudulent papers have a tendency to persist.

Yes, it could imply lots of things. To focus on only that possible implication shows a bias; to focus on any possible implication without data shows a disinterest in actual science.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#62

Post by wolverine876 »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #19
i8comments wrote: post #14

Still a good place to study, though.

I think it would be beneficial if every Stanford admit just went to their state schools. The purpose of these institutions isn't to educate, it's to confer status (in a tax efficient and positive-eugenic way)

Have you attended any of those institutions? That's not my experience at all. The education was off-the-charts good. In more detail:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829116

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#64

Post by wolverine876 »

korginator wrote: post #43
wand3r wrote: post #10

> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?

Add this point from the article for context: "This retraction is Tessier-Lavigne’s fourth in as many months, a stunning turn of events for a researcher of his stature." That begs the question, how did at least four such cutting-edge research works with fabricated data and results go through the review process unscathed?

There's no evidence of fabricated data, afaik. (That's your own fabrication, apparently.)

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#65

Post by laidoffamazon »

wolverine876 wrote: post #62
laidoffamazon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be beneficial if every Stanford admit just went to their state schools. The purpose of these institutions isn't to educate, it's to confer status (in a tax efficient and positive-eugenic way)

Have you attended any of those institutions? That's not my experience at all. The education was off-the-charts good. In more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829116

Of course not, I wouldn't get in.

But I never said the education is bad. I just said their purpose is not to educate. Morill Act institutions were developed to educate, and by accepting the vast majority of people that apply University of Oklahoma will always exist to educate. The same cannot be said for Brown or Stanford.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#66

Post by laidoffamazon »

wolverine876 wrote: post #57
echelon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a fintech that employed both MIT graduates and people that didn't go to college at all. With our hiring and interview process serving as a great filter, it was impossible to tell who fell into which population until they told you.

Here's my anecdote: In extensive exposure to a top-25 global university, and to a top-10 elite one, there was a big difference in the student body and the education. The latter was a different world; the education was innovative, brilliant, demanding at a very high level that I didn't anticipate. The students operated at a different level, world-class talent with shocking intelligence and, for their age, experience,…

I'd love for you to tell me, step by step, what someone that didn't get into a top institution of any kind should take away from this comment.

Because all I can take away is that people like me are just objectively inferior compared to you, destined to not be a future leader or professional. Is that not what you are attempting to communicate? I just want to be crystal clear. We all know people like you are superhuman. I'm just wondering what it should mean for the rest of us, the 99.99%.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#67

Post by ekianjo »

wolverine876 wrote: post #60
ekianjo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not because most of stuff is not retracted that its valid. Most studies are never replicated...

What data do you have to support that?

first, I have a functioning brain that makes it possible for me to imagine that incentives to cheat and the complete lack of replication process makes it easy to push the balance towards publishing fake results. Then, I am well aware that the peer process is not about replication at all and is mostly useless in its current shape.

Then people actually tried it which confirmed everything I mentioned:

> This certainly does not only happen in cancer research. In a study from Nature, out of 1,576 researchers, more than 70% have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and over half failed to reproduce their own. And even though 52% agree there is a reproducibility crisis, only 31% think that failing to reproduce published results means that the result is wrong. Even if replication is not necessary for results to be valid and true, any further work based on these results requires confirmation of valid results beyond the initial study.

source: https://vce.usc.edu/weekly-news-profile/the-replication-cris...

Current Science is mostly cargo cult.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#68

Post by ekianjo »

wolverine876 wrote: post #39
ekianjo wrote: post #34

> This retraction is Tessier-Lavigne’s fourth in as many months, a stunning turn of events for a researcher of his stature. That says a lot about how worthless the whole science journal and peer review process is. At this rate your assumption is that 50% of what is published is complete junk.

That would be a far less scientific, and true, conclusion than what was in the papers. From the article: > Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database.

Erm...

> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers

This retraction actually happened because someone BOTHERED to check the results and push for hard questions.

You can bet that this does not happen for every publication... So...

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#69

Post by ekianjo »

wolverine876 wrote: post #59
vlovich123 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All a small retraction rate tells us is that it’s very difficult to get a retraction. But as with peer review, whether or not there’s a lot of retractions tells you little about the quality of the unretracted papers. Think about how much attention has to be paid for retractions to happen, how long the work existed without retraction, how difficult it was to get a retraction for outright fraud (ignoring work that itse…

> All a small retraction rate tells us is that it’s very difficult to get a retraction. You're just making the data fit your preconceived beliefs, which would is how we get fraudulant research.

> making the data fit

What? this is literally what happened (someone pushing hard to challenge the results) for these 4 retractions related to this guy's work. You don't get a retraction just by posting a comment on HN or something.

Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president

#70

Post by paulcole »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #53
paulcole wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that MIT grads are objectively superior to the rest of us that didn't get into any elite schools in basically every dimension I'd wager it's fairly high. Genuflect when you say that fella.

You jest, but is it not accurate?

Your belief that somebody who got into MIT is “objectively superior” in “basically every dimension” compared to someone who didn’t is one of the cringiest thoughts I’ve seen expressed on HN and that is saying something.

I honestly thought (and still hope) that I missed the sarcasm.

Post reply on HN