[HN Gopher] Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared...
___________________________________________________________________
Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation
Author : dangle1
Score : 530 points
Date : 2024-09-12 21:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| teekert wrote:
| "... the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions
| regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation--which is
| probably a very good thing for science."
|
| "Probably good for science"? That _is_ science!
| kortilla wrote:
| Yes, that's why the ruling is good for science. It would be a
| dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to
| defamation
| bluGill wrote:
| In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation.
| Beware if you live there.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| The same is true in Japan. Very few are aware of how little
| press freedoms and speech rights are protected there and
| have regressed further under assault from the ruling LDP
| party.
| cortesoft wrote:
| My understanding is it is a little more nuanced than that.
|
| The truth is still an absolute defense against defamation
| in the UK, just like it is in the US, but the difference is
| who the burden of proof is on.
|
| In the US, it is up to the person suing for defamation to
| prove the statements were false AND that the person knew
| them to be false when they said them (or should have known
| they were false).
|
| In the UK, for someone to use the truth as an absolute
| defense, they have to prove the statements were true, which
| is often not very easy.
| mr_toad wrote:
| In both bases proof is only on balance of evidence, so
| the difference between proving something is or isn't true
| is not as great as it would be if the standard was proof
| beyond reasonable doubt.
| dgfitz wrote:
| It's a lot easier to prove that there is a white swan
| than a black swan in the world somewhere.
| appendix-rock wrote:
| Very 'ironic' that this is quite a...dishonest
| representation of the truth.
| smcin wrote:
| My own post here [0] got suddenly multiply downvoted and
| flagged, even though I wrote it very carefully and double-
| checked every single statement. Truth defense.
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
| oefrha wrote:
| TL;DRs are frowned upon on HN because HN encourages
| people to read the article (especially before commenting)
| rather than Don't Read the article.[1] You're further
| breaking guidelines by complaining about votes.
|
| That said, your comment isn't a summary of the article at
| all.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459
| mr_toad wrote:
| This is ironically, not true.
|
| "It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in
| the statement complained of is substantially true."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences
| immibis wrote:
| The same in Germany.
| komali2 wrote:
| It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts:
|
| > The court cites precedent to note that "[s]cientific
| controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather
| than by the methods of litigation"
|
| I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent?
| Is general precedent a thing?
| exegete wrote:
| I saw that quote in the article but cannot find it in the
| ruling itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us
| courts.mad.259...
|
| It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010:
| https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
| vitus wrote:
| It's mentioned around page 30-31:
|
| > Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays
| out in the pages of peer
|
| > reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the
| jury." (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter,
|
| > 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary
| judgment against defamation claims and
|
| > stating that "[s]cientific controversies must be settled
| by the methods of science rather than by
|
| > the methods of litigation").
|
| So, https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter
| exegete wrote:
| Thanks! I don't know why my search didn't find that.
| anitil wrote:
| We're lucky to have hard-headed people willing to put up with
| legal threats and bullying tactics. I'm not sure I'd have the
| spine for it. It reminds me of when Ben Goldacre was sued [0]
| which luckily his publisher covered the costs for.
|
| [0] https://www.badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-
| Now...
| afh1 wrote:
| The problem is being able to sue for something like defamation.
| At the extreme, like happens in Brazil, innocent people are
| sent to jail for criticizing politicians.
|
| https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-suits-defamation
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| That is true, but this is so much worse.
|
| 1) this is a college
|
| 2) it was about research, fundamental to the mission of
| higher education
|
| 3) it was fraud, not error
|
| 4) It was HARVARD, exalted bastion of elite colleges, the
| most prestigious university in the US
|
| I get Harvard is always more about influence and an insiders
| club rather than any real academic work, but still ... So
| many heads should roll over this.
| smcin wrote:
| [tl;dr] US District Court dismisses Francesca Gino's
| controversial $25m defamation lawsuit against Harvard Business
| School and DataColada scientist-bloggers (Simonsohn, Nelson, and
| Simmons). The judge allowed Gino's breach of contract claim
| against Harvard to continue.
|
| DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own
| universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by
| Simine Vazire [https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-
| coladas-legal-...]. Yet apparently not a penny from the journals
| which Gino published in, or by HBS, or the funders of Gino's
| research.
|
| (EDIT: this got upvoted, then suddenly multiply downvoted and
| flagged - why? I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every
| single statement. If anyone's quibbling the term "Francesca
| Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit", that term was used
| by the MBA-watching blog
| https://poetsandquants.com/2024/09/12/judge-dismisses-france... )
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Do universities typically go to bat for their faculty?
| Presumably the blog investigation is not done with any direct
| university involvement.
| smcin wrote:
| I can't comment, but it's a truly bizarre spectacle to see
| research integrity being upheld by three public-minded
| researchers (one of them based in Spain) and a defense fund
| on GoFundMe organized by an Australian academic. The academic
| publishers didn't fund them and neither did the funders of
| the research. We need a discussion about frameworks to fund
| misconduct researchers (including related legal defense),
| also about pressures to publish irreproducible results with
| mediagenic, counterfactual findings.
|
| The entity with the least incentive to fully investigate HBS
| is, paradoxically... HBS itself... because questions have
| been raised about multiple other coauthors, the reputational
| and financial consequences and wrongful termination claims
| look set to run for a decade. Some have conjectured that
| whenever the full facts are finally disclosed, this scandal
| will take out the reputation of Harvard in general (not just
| HBS, or Behavioral Economics as a field, or priming), or all
| the Ivies, at least for business-school.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| The universities might've deemed it to be an important enough
| PR situation and low risk enough to do it.
|
| Alternatively maybe they were obligated to back them up if
| the work was done in their official capacity as faculty?
| rebanevapustus wrote:
| 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/2023/10/30/stephensons-
| alternat...
|
| My institution completely brushed it off as a no problem, and
| said that it wasn't worth pursuing it at all.
|
| It was very traumatising (and still is). I lost all faith in
| academia.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| Do you have a source for their universities paying? Their
| fundraising page states that "their employers have so far only
| agreed to pay part of the legal fees".
|
| https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
| alach11 wrote:
| In the August 2nd, 2024 update on the GoFundMe:
|
| "Because our universities have generously funded our defense
| up to this point, we have not (yet) had to use any of the
| GoFundMe money... we are reaching out to you to explain how
| we intend to use it. Obviously if we need the money for our
| defense, we will use it for our defense. Our plan is to
| donate any money we do not use to The Scientific Integrity
| Fund, an organization that defends scientists who find
| themselves in a predicament that is very similar to ours. "
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| There is no limits a grifter wont go to in order to continue
| their grift. Those with the funds regularly get away with it
| purely because they have the funds to sue their opponents into
| bankruptcy. The system worked in this case but it so rarely does
| and we see so often people having to back down due to legal
| threats.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| see: Lance Armstrong.+
|
| +
| https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lance_armstrong_admi...
| jujube3 wrote:
| Time flies when you're having funds.
| taeric wrote:
| This whole ordeal has been crazy. Glad to see some sanity
| prevailing at this level. Curious where the rest of the story is
| at. Anyone have a good primer on where things ultimately are, at
| this point?
|
| Curious on more than just this case. If I recall, there were
| several large scale misconduct cases that hit back to back. All
| of those still in flight?
| nikcub wrote:
| Pete Judo's channel on YouTube has been covering this since the
| beginning, and other cases:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| I'd love to hear more about the outcome for harvard.
|
| it seems that they mostly did the right thing, but how they
| went about it may not have been conforming to the pre-
| determined rules for employees.
| apwheele wrote:
| While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed
| incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-
| trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a
| year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple
| back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I
| see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motions and
| responses are a non-trivial amount of work.
|
| Do folks have a sense of how much the costs would have been just
| to get dismissed for DC? Seems to be definitely over 10k (50k?)
| Or am I overestimating.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't get out of bed for $10k:
|
| https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/
|
| Although given that the New Yorker stated that Pyle "appeared
| not only professionally but personally incensed by the fact of
| the lawsuit", perhaps some of the work was pro bono.
|
| https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-a-scientific-di...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Thankfully, a lot of the filings appear short enough that I
| doubt he's going to charge very much. I assume the retainer
| was still $20-30k, but they may get some of it back.
|
| I was hoping that there would be some fee-shifting here, but
| it's federal court.
| yial wrote:
| I would guess a 20-30k retainer in this occurrence would be
| a discounted retainer as well. I say this just based upon
| my personal experience with a few smaller firms.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| If you're known to be good for the money, you can often
| get lower retainer bills from lawyers. That's why Donald
| Trump has to put up tens of millions for any legal
| project. Many of my lawyers do not ask for retainers for
| work at all, even for bigger things.
| jhauris wrote:
| I don't know him or this case, but lawyers tend to often feel
| that way about the cases they are representing. I wouldn't
| think that means he's not billing.
| rudyfink wrote:
| You are probably not overestimating.
|
| Generally, I would guess conferring with the client on the
| facts, briefing, preparing for a hearing, and arguing a hearing
| would be north of, at least, 25k, assuming a lower-end rate
| estimate in the $800+ range and a lower-end work estimate of
| 30+ hours. If I had to bet, I'd go higher than the low-end
| estimate: both the rate and hours could be close to double.
| That said, the attorney / firm could be donating the time on
| this one.
| rfw300 wrote:
| Fortunately, they were able to raise quite a bit of money
| (>$300K) on GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-
| data-coladas-legal-...
| teractiveodular wrote:
| From the page: _At present, Leif, Joe, and Uri do not have
| pro bono representation. The lawyers they've spoken to
| currently estimate that their defense could cost anywhere
| between $50,000 and $600,000 (depending on how far the
| lawsuit progresses)._
| yard2010 wrote:
| That's scary, really. Having no money for this means you
| can't afford to fight these criminal crooks. Is this how
| this works in europe too?
| Mkengine wrote:
| No, where I live (Germany) you usually have a legal
| insurance to cover this. The costs are around 30EUR per
| month in my case.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I live next door and have some legal insurance, but you
| need to pay attention to what coverage you get, because
| you need to select what categories you want coverage for;
| vehicles (e.g. if someone who caused an accident refuses
| to cooperate with you), consumer/housing disputes, work
| and salary, taxes / stocks, family issues like
| inheritances, second homes / real estate, etc etc etc.
| And of course, you can't take out insurance for an
| ongoing issue, it doesn't cover criminal cases (when you
| did a bad), business cases, etc.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Corporate liability insurance in the US, which is also a
| very common thing to get, often does not cover your
| defense against "intentional torts" such as defamation or
| fraud. It usually covers things like slips and falls,
| product-related liability, etc. I would be surprised if
| your German version covers defamation.
| Hamuko wrote:
| In Europe, the losing party of a lawsuit generally has to
| pay for the winner's legal expenses ("English rule").
| Never had to go to court so I don't know what you do
| about the expenses in the meanwhile, but at least there's
| light at the end of the tunnel when someone sues you just
| for the heck of it.
| jaclaz wrote:
| Europe may be too wide a categorization, I am pretty sure
| that different countries have different ways to deal with
| the matter.
|
| My (thankfully very little) experience in Italy is for
| civil litigations at least (where it is rare that one of
| the two parties get 100% reason) expenses are usually
| compensated (i.e. every party pays their own ones), in
| the more rare case where all expenses are paid by the
| succumbing party, what is liquidated is not really what
| has been paid, but rather what the expenses would be
| along some sort of tariff.
|
| If your solicitor/lawyer is a famous (presumably very
| good as you won) one, it is likely that the amount you
| spend is much higher than what the judge condemned the
| other party to reimburse you.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| In the US, you can ask for fee-shifting if you have been
| sued frivolously or there has otherwise been some
| wrongdoing on the part of the other side. These guys may
| be able to motion for fee-shifting given that the case
| was dismissed at this early stage.
|
| State defamation cases usually apply anti-SLAPP laws that
| automatically create fee-shifting in this exact
| circumstance, but this seems to be a federal case.
| apwheele wrote:
| I was aware of that, but I would still be interested to know
| the actual costs. I do not think "it is ok to blog about
| potential fraud in scientific publications because GoFundMe
| will pay for my lawyers" is a good assumption for most
| individuals.
|
| I see people saying it is a win for open science, and I just
| look at that Court Listener page and it still fills me with
| angst.
| aheilbut wrote:
| You are underestimating...
| tothrowaway wrote:
| I would agree. I'm the defendant in a (frivolous) trademark
| infringement case and my firm (which does work for the EFF)
| averages about 2 hours per (substantial) page, at a rate of
| $500/hour. I do wonder in the back of my mind if I'm being
| taken to the cleaners...
| yial wrote:
| I have a limited experience, only having been involved in
| one trademark case professionally and am not a lawyer, but
| this was a case that very quickly settled and fees were
| still close to $30,000.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Or am I overestimating.
|
| Ahh, sweet summer child who has never seen these kind of legal
| fees.
|
| I do hope Gino gets socked with their legal fees.
| pfdietz wrote:
| This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I'm not familiar with civil court in the US, but wouldn't the
| plaintiff have to cover the legal expenses of the defendant, if
| the defendant is cleared? Or similar rulings.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Even if it is, it happens months or years later, with today's
| interest rates you would still end up with a debt unless you
| have the capital. I'm not even talking about the emotional
| toll and stress, especially when you're the good guy, just
| have to prove it..
| Hamuko wrote:
| No, both sides of a lawsuit are generally responsible for
| their own costs regardless of what the outcome is. There are
| some caveats to this, like anti-SLAPP laws, but that's how it
| generally goes. This is basically in contrast to every other
| western democracy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe.
| ..
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Have you seen Harvard's endowment?
|
| I'm sure there's counterdamages and he can take a percentage
| nullc wrote:
| It's not just the money. When you're the target of litigation,
| particularly irregular specialist domain stuff that it can
| really take over your life.
|
| You might recover some of your legal costs from your opponent,
| but the disruption to your life will not be compensated.
| godelski wrote:
| Not to mention the time it takes. So not only are you losing
| money, losing time, and it's emotionally taxing, but you
| often aren't even making money during that time.
| silexia wrote:
| As someone with extensive experience paying legal bills, I
| would guess the bill was well over $40,000 unless the lawyer
| did it pro bono.
|
| Our legal system is badly broken in favor of lawyers making
| more money.
| Validark wrote:
| "[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of
| science rather than by the methods of litigation"
|
| Boom. And the researchers didn't accuse a person of fabrication,
| they accused the data of being fabricated.
| sparsely wrote:
| Courts have had little hesitation to decide these matters
| themselves for a long time - check out "Bite Mark Analysis" or
| any number of trials involving medical evidence. While I do
| think that they need to consider scientific matters they are
| vastly overconfident in the conclusions reached.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| I don't see any distinction there.
| RachelF wrote:
| The irony is that Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely are famous for
| their pop-sci/TED talks studying dishonesty. Turns out they were
| dishonest themselves.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances...
| hughesjj wrote:
| I'm at the point where if I see it in a TED talk I'm assuming
| it's a bullshit grifter
| usea wrote:
| Even 8 years ago that was a safe view to hold.
| hilux wrote:
| Me too. Same for pretty much any "scientist" on NPR, or with
| a popular book. Not EVERY one is a hack or a fraud, but
| enough are that as a group, they're not trustworthy.
|
| That's a big chunk of my adult life I need to forget, because
| I was so into the broad field of applied social science,
| Ariely in particular. It's a real shame.
| zo1 wrote:
| I blocked the TED channel on YouTube a few years back as it
| was getting bad. They first diluted their "brand" or quality
| with TEDx, and it's been downhill since as they've been
| scraping the bottom of the barrel and tried to "scale" or
| "franchise". Happens everytime, growth at all costs. The only
| way to stop it is to have passionate leaders who care more
| about the goal than the money.
|
| Unfortunately, usually by the time these leaders have
| established their company they are also on a downward life
| trajectory in terms of years left, so they switch to
| "extraction" mode.
| Suppafly wrote:
| I don't have a problem with the concept of locally branded
| TED talks under the TEDx umbrella, but I do have a problem
| of TEDx talks pretending that they are genuine TED talks.
| Generally actual TED talks have some quality checks built
| in, they sometimes allow garbage through, but it's far more
| rigid than the stuff you see at the TEDx talks.
| protomolecule wrote:
| Even if it is a Nobel prize winner like Jennifer Doudna?
| guappa wrote:
| Well the guy who invented lobotomy got one of those. Or the
| guy who invented microcredit. To not even venture in the
| peace nobel prizes area, where getting one is probably
| indicative of being evil.
| adastra22 wrote:
| I mean the Nobel committee gave the Peace prize to
| Kissinger. I'm not sure they're a good bellwether for
| anything.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Tom Lehrer famously retired when Kissinger got the peace
| prize declaring satire to be dead. The really funny one
| to me is they gave literature to Winston Churchill
| because they thought they probably couldn't give him
| peace, then when Kissinger came up they thought "Why
| not?"
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| Churchill's autobiography [0] is actually a great read.
| I'm nowhere near qualified to judge a literature Nobel
| prize but I loved it. His history of the English speaking
| peoples is pretty good too.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Early_Life
| protomolecule wrote:
| >Well the guy who invented lobotomy got one of those.
|
| Yeah, and when you see a Nobel prize winner you must be
| assuming it's a bullshit grifter.
| RachelF wrote:
| It's hard to generalize. The whole field of behavioural
| intelligence has lots of fake/unrepeatable studies.
|
| Even Kahneman, who got a Economics Nobel has this issue:
|
| https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-
| und...
| protomolecule wrote:
| Yep, it's hard, that's why sometimes it's better not to
| overgeneralize. But sure, that field is full if
| unreproducible "research".
| yard2010 wrote:
| I would argue: that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is how
| it works. In a system in which there are external motivations
| (power, money, number of citations etc.) it's a problem of
| incentives, and should be solved by putting the emphasis on
| other values, as a culture. What you describe is a symptom.
|
| Ofc, I'm not trying to defend such behavior.
| visarga wrote:
| Maybe they were doing "first-person research" on dishonesty. /s
| SMAAART wrote:
| She wrote the book "Rebel Talent: why it pays to break the
| rules".
| larsnystrom wrote:
| Practice what you preach, as they say.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| In my opinion, defamation law is not fit for purpose, it's far
| too easy for rich people with axes to grind to sue their accusers
| in an attempt to stifle speech by putting a price on their words.
| Anti-SLAPP motions are supposed to fix this by allowing fee
| shifting, but they only exist in a handful of states, and I'm
| still not 100% sure how effective that alone can be at restoring
| freedom of speech[0].
|
| Until such time as that legal system is fixed, the scientific
| community should take countermeasures against the law. I'm
| calling for some kind of universal default clause[1]. If you sue
| scientific accusers for defamation, _you 're not doing science
| anymore_, so you should be automatically fired from or kicked out
| of any scientific institution you're a member of. You could
| obviously restrain this to only unproven allegations - i.e. get a
| scientific board to call the allegations bullshit first and then
| you can bring it to a court. But the pathway of allegations of
| fraud becoming "put up $100k in legal fees or shut up" is not
| acceptable in a free society.
|
| [0] Related note: do you remember when Donald Trump was saying he
| wanted to "open up our libel laws" to make it EASIER to pull this
| shit!?
|
| [1] "Universal default" is a concept in banking that treats
| defaulting on _any_ loan the same as defaulting on the specific
| loan mentioned in the contract.
| nullc wrote:
| Unfortunately for malicious litigants their whole goal is to
| damage you with the process or to use the threat of doing so to
| coerce you. They'll use defamation law when its the path of
| least resistance but if that's off the table they'll just cook
| up some other claim.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| So what happens with these costs - surely the failed litigant
| should shoulder some if not all of the costs of defending this
| defamation claim?
| proto-n wrote:
| To my (totally uninformed) eyes it looks like maybe this could
| count as a SLAPP suit [1], in which case there's a possbility
| for a counterclaim for legal costs. However, Massachusetts
| apparently has "much weaker anti-SLAPP laws" [2] (than
| California, in the context of the article)
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
|
| [2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23841742/francesca-
| gino-d...
| perihelions wrote:
| Often, no. There's a relevant specific fee-recovery mechanism
| [0] in some, not all, states, because this class of lawsuit
| acknowledged as being problematic, as being an effective way to
| silence 1A-protected speech. The deeper problem is that
| litigation is extraordinarily expensive in the US, and
| generically easy to abuse as an intimidation weapon--for rich
| entities to use against those who can't afford lawyers; or for
| fanatics to use against normal risk-averse people who don't
| want lawsuits-don't value whatever it is the fanatic is fanatic
| about, highly enough to go to court to argue it.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
| progbits wrote:
| Sadly it doesn't work like that but even that wouldn't be fair.
| If you lose the defamation as the plaintiff you should be
| forced to pay the full amount you were suing for to the
| defendant. Or even a multiple of that.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| If only Prof. Gino had signed her papers at the beginning she
| would have been less inclined to falsify the data.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458378/
| mzs wrote:
| bravo!
| tanepiper wrote:
| I posted this a while back on here, but my wife works in
| Behavioural Science, and wrote this about it last year
| https://www.squarepeginsight.com/post/the-dark-side-of-behav...
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Unlike Gino, Ariely doesn't seem to have had a downfall. He
| still has a lab at Duke, he keeps getting invited to give
| talks, his consultancy is still getting contracts. It doesn't
| make any sense to me. Maybe another behavioral scientist can
| fake an experiment to explain it.
| andrelaszlo wrote:
| > To believe that the Original data are fake and the Posted data
| are real, you'd have to believe that the sensible data are fake
| and the backwards data are real. That is a difficult thing to
| believe.
|
| > We were right about how the data were altered, Gino's
| prevailing explanation for the alterations does not make sense,
| and yet _we_ are the defendants in this case.
|
| What's the academic term for "mic drop"?
|
| https://datacolada.org/118
| andrelaszlo wrote:
| This analysis is simple but brilliant. Some rows appeared out
| of order. They changed them back to what they should be
| according to their position, then checked the effects on the
| distributions:
|
| https://datacolada.org/111
| polartx wrote:
| If she was falsifying data, I must assume it was to support a
| biased hypothesis she held however the article doesn't
| elaborate on what conclusion her fraudulent data supported
| beyond this being a "behavioral science" study.
|
| Can anyone fill in the gaps to those conspicuously missing
| details?
| kayge wrote:
| > What's the academic term for "mic drop"?
|
| I've always gone for "QED" but I'm sure there are better
| options out there :)
| dang wrote:
| Related. Others?
|
| _Harvard Probe Finds Honesty Researcher Engaged in Scientific
| Misconduct_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39712021 -
| March 2024 (15 comments)
|
| _They studied dishonesty - Was their work a lie?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37714898 - Sept 2023 (153
| comments)
|
| _Crowdfunding a defense for scientific research_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37393502 - Sept 2023 (47
| comments)
|
| _I'm so sorry for psychology's loss, whatever it is_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37315292 - Aug 2023 (94
| comments)
|
| _Support Academic Freedom of Speech_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37153168 - Aug 2023 (1
| comment)
|
| _Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37152030 - Aug 2023 (13
| comments)
|
| _Harvard professor Francesca Gino was accused of faking data_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670 - Aug 2023 (146
| comments)
|
| _Fabricated data in research about honesty_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36907829 - July 2023 (46
| comments)
|
| _Fraudulent data raise questions about superstar honesty
| researcher (2021)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36726485 - July 2023 (33
| comments)
|
| _Harvard ethics professor allegedly fabricated multiple studies_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36665247 - July 2023 (215
| comments)
|
| _Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36424090 - June 2023 (201
| comments)
|
| _Data Falsificada (Part 1): "Clusterfake" - Data Colada_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374255 - June 2023 (7
| comments)
|
| _Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with
| evidence of fraud_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28264097 - Aug 2021 (102
| comments)
|
| _A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28257860 - Aug 2021 (91
| comments)
|
| _Evidence of fraud in an influential field experiment about
| dishonesty_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642 - Aug
| 2021 (51 comments)
| kernal wrote:
| How ironic that the people exposing a fraudster must defend
| themselves from the false allegations of a fraudster. The sad and
| pathetic part is that Francesca Gino even tried to blame her
| colleagues for the fake data. These videos are a good primer on
| the dishonesty of Francesca Gino.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNK4nXWA_s8
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE5V_nW7pPo
| red_admiral wrote:
| In theory, if the other side can't outpay you on lawyers, truth
| should be an absolute defense to allegations of defamation. If
| you're careful enough not to just write "she faked the data" but
| "based on this evidence ... we believe the data is fake", that
| should be watertight.
| xbar wrote:
| Arrivederci, Francesca Gino.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-13 23:01 UTC)