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

731–740 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#731

Post by AndrewKemendo »

jshdhehe wrote: post #566
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason many people hate children is because children are not satisfied with the level of epistemology that most people can provide them, and have no compunction in saying “that answer is unsatisfactory” Hence why institutional pedagogy is so often rote and has nothing to do with understanding - when we know science of learning says that every human craves understanding (montessori, piaget etc…) In fact, the short…

Those questions esp 1, 3, 5 sound almost like therapy. Maybe CBT, ACT? Good orgs would ask at all 5 in every power gradient direction: so peers, managers, ICs, execs ... although not for everything as you would grind to a halt!

I’ve been in CBT decades and switched to EFT a few years ago and it’s been a total game changer

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#732

Post by tsimionescu »

jprete wrote: post #705
Aerroon wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's really going to work. People won't list all their incentives, because some of them are implicit and others are embarrassing or "creepy". Others will absolutely judge you for what incentivizes your actions, therefore hiding them is the status quo. If you say that your incentive for working out is to look good and be popular with the ladies then people will judge you for it, even if it's exactly th…

At this point I'm so used to this that I mentally translate "for health" into "to look good for the opposite sex".

That's reductive, some of use are doing it to look good for the same sex!

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#733

Post by cdaringe »

rebanevapustus wrote: post #725

I was the victim of a pretty bizarre super in-your-face academic theft. Someone snooped a half-finished draft of mine off GitHub and...actually got it published in a real journal: https://forbetterscience.com/2024/05/29/who-are-you-matthew-... In spite of having a full commit log (with GitHub verified commits!!!) of both the code AND the paper, both arxiv and the journal didn't seem to care or bother at all. Anyhow,…

Can you speak more to the “not caring at all” bit? I believe you, but how did you engage them? Did you end up publishing your work eventually?

forbetterscience seems like a good idea, but the writing style, the images, and even the about page gave me pause on if this is a reliable site for trustworthy science commentary

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#734

Post by cdaringe »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #333

If I have learned anything over 40 years, is that the number of people who actually live in a way consistent with hypothesis testing, data collection, evidence evaluation framework required to have scientific confidence in future action or even claims is effectively zero That includes people who consider themselves professional scientists, PhD‘s authors, leaders etc. The only people I know who live “scientifically” c…

> effectively zero

That feels extreme. Zero is a cold, dark, lonely number. Maybe it’s correct—i dont know. Ive worked on only a couple of projects in this space, and while the incentives certainly involved publishing, i dont feel that it equated to abandoning the SciMethod. Instead, it was the cost to pay for the ability to continue doing science.

Can you really stand by ZERO? How about a 1%. Meet me somewhere above zero, or, if you’d be so kind, make a compelling case why were truly rock bottom.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#735

Post by csaid81 »

daedrdev wrote: post #28

Is there no liability for the author? There are billions of dollars wasted in drug trials and research that can be tied to this fraud. Surely they can face some legal issues due to this?

He could be prosecuted under current fraud laws, but this hardly ever happens.

I wrote a blog post on how to make this easier, including a new criminal statute specifically tailored for scientific fraud. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672599

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#736

Post by cdaringe »

majormajor wrote: post #5
hprotagonist wrote: post #2

> It seems like a strange thing to take someone with a long and respected career and subject them to what would essentially be a Western blot and photomicrograph audit before offering them a big position. This is absolutely something that we should routinely be doing, though.

It's pretty similar to the level of distrust in the software engineering job interview process. Pick your poison, to some extent. Better would be to not have to do it after-the-fact, but to vet better at every intermediate step, but it's hard. Just a very difficult people problem.

Agreed. There!s uproar over coding interviews, which makes no sense to me. We give easy peasy code reviews to smoke check claimed skills. 4 of 5 candidates do absolutely terribly on very easy stuff, relative to their claimed skillset. No, our bar isn’t high—fraud (resume fraud) is sadly very real.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#737

Post by brightball »

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…

How this happens given the near reverence provided to “peer review” is another question.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#738

Post by Chris2048 »

testfoobar wrote: post #128
hacksoi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people can get away with it, they will do it. Rules and punishments for breaking them exist for a reason.

> If people can get away with it, they will do it. This is not universally true and individuals and societies don't have to be organized this way. Why are streets in some countries filled with trash when others are clean? My community does not have anyone policing littering - yet our streets, parks and public areas are litter free.

You are kind of begging the question - Do all members of your community take mandatory ethics classes?

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#739

Post by Maken »

Aerroon wrote: post #535
sitkack wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If humanity is to mature, we should be an open book when it comes to incentives and build a world purposefully with all incentives aligned to the outcomes we collectively agree upon. https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ Charlie Munger's Misjudgment #1: Incentive-caused Bias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-2yIO8cnvw https://fs.blog/bias-incentives-reinforcement/

I don't think that's really going to work. People won't list all their incentives, because some of them are implicit and others are embarrassing or "creepy". Others will absolutely judge you for what incentivizes your actions, therefore hiding them is the status quo. If you say that your incentive for working out is to look good and be popular with the ladies then people will judge you for it, even if it's exactly th…

You got it backwards. It's not about being transparent about what you want to achieve, it's about being transparent about what others expect you to achieve on your current position.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#740

Post by dmix »

sobkas wrote: post #576
nativeit wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Yes TV shows especially, they are under a lot of pressure to put them out on time so stuff isn’t always thought out fully.
Post reply on HN