Live data from Hacker News

False claims in a widely-cited paper

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#71
Somewhat unrelated but relevant thought: from software engineering experience in large orgs, correction of any issue rarely worth any effort. AI will drive commiting more and more papers with less and less review. The review takes effort, too much in the age of easy generation.

With this, science will probably lose trust even more in the coming years.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#74

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…

So, I was interested in this statement, and looked into it barely, and on one side, its conclusions were replicated in a number of other papers[1] (despite the headlines, three years after its publication, of a simple calculation error)[2]. I'll state that neither of these points are a slam-dunk if you're a member of one political side or another. If you're a believer in austerity, you'll look at the corroborating studies; if you think that was a bad policy choice, you can argue that they're all junk science, pushed out by supporters of the status quo.

I suspect what it narrowly shows though is that this isn't the same category of error as what's being discussed here.

[1] https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/debt-and-gro...

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#75
post #71

Somewhat unrelated but relevant thought: from software engineering experience in large orgs, correction of any issue rarely worth any effort. AI will drive commiting more and more papers with less and less review. The review takes effort, too much in the age of easy generation. With this, science will probably lose trust even more in the coming years.

Brandolini's Bullshit Asymmetry Principle is the adage for our age:

> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#76
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don’t worry, we’re getting there. They just started dismantling what they refer to as the “administrative state”, but which largely deferred substantial questions requiring skill and non-partisan judgement to their respective experts. It was never perfect, nor free from partisan and/or economic concerns, but the replacement appears to be self-interested narcissists and sycophants and their personal fiefdoms, with pre…

At least now the masks (and Musks) are off.

It was never between the left and the right or any other false dichotomies, but always between the Epstein-class and the actual human beings.

The question now is that do the normal people realize and act on the fact that the elevator to Epstein class was never working. Or even better, they don't want to become the zillionaire class husk of a human.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#77

I'm very confused because there are 2 Andrews, the author in the blog post only states "Andrew", and by the list of Authors the author seems to be Andrew Gelman, but the slug in the first link is "aking", and then there is also Andrew King, lol.

Andrew King seems to be the person who published the original exposé of the paper:

> The above story came from my occasional collaborator Andy King [...]

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#78
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would point out that most products are useless, and either fail or replace other products which weren't any worse. None of which prevented me from cashing my paychecks for the first half of my career when I worked in private industry. Most scientific research represents about the same amount of improvement over the state of the art as the shitty web app or whatever that you're working on right now. It's not zero, b…

Hey I have also called research a marketplace for ideas before! cool.

Re: False claims in a widely-cited paper

#80
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t worry, we’re getting there. They just started dismantling what they refer to as the “administrative state”, but which largely deferred substantial questions requiring skill and non-partisan judgement to their respective experts. It was never perfect, nor free from partisan and/or economic concerns, but the replacement appears to be self-interested narcissists and sycophants and their personal fiefdoms, with pre…

At least now the masks (and Musks) are off. It was never between the left and the right or any other false dichotomies, but always between the Epstein-class and the actual human beings. The question now is that do the normal people realize and act on the fact that the elevator to Epstein class was never working. Or even better, they don't want to become the zillionaire class husk of a human.

You say it's not left v. right, but it sure sounds like you think the right is what's causing inequality. Which I agree with.
Post reply on HN