I don't want to impugn the character of the researchers, because I don't think the problem comes down to character. — csalisbury
And medicine and biology and ecology and genetics and... — fdrake
So you publish what you can. And everyone else is too busy to notice because they're playing the same game. — fishfry
And actually a lot of physics is irreproducible these days, being entirely mathematical and not subject to any experimental verification at all — fishfry
And actually a lot of physics is irreproducible these days, being entirely mathematical — fishfry
I don't want to impugn the character of the researchers, [snip] but the incentive structures push people to keep doing this stuff. — csalisbury
If you can be ordered about by incentive structures, you have no character. Character is that which resists manipulation — unenlightened
sainthood would be a high bar to clear in order to do labwork. — csalisbury
↪fishfry Exactly - and that's part of what of is so flagrant about this. The replication crisis is The Big Topic in psychological circles -& has been for a pretty long while at this point! It's not just that the approach is bad for the reasons in the OP - it's that those doing it can't plead ignorance. Everyone (in these circles) knows there is a crisis of replication - yet they're, many of them, still hacking the system for flashy results. — csalisbury
In my field, the phrase people openly use when talking about their data is “how can we spin this”? I am not making this up, I’ve had a conversation a few weeks ago at a conference with a poster presenter who used the words, “if we want to, we can spin the result like this”. It’s part of the discourse and it is understood that there is a storytelling(“spin”) aspect to it and nobody objects to this. Editors have more than once asked us to rewrite our paper so that our post-hoc findings can be re-cast as an a priori prediction; there is no sense that there’s anything wrong with that.
People who tell this kind of storytelling dominate the field, they dominate the funding and the job scene. If as a young student you are trying to do the right thing, you will not publish in top journals because your “story” is too ambiguous and tentative. People in these fields have no hesitation in making the strongest possible claim and then going beyond that. They publish in top journals, get the jobs and the research money. The honest student can’t compete. Once you have hundreds of articles to your name, it’s a winner take all situation. Fiske, in her interview yesterday, mentioned that she has some 300+ published articles; that’s the kind of number that gives you money when you want it, and where you want it, for whatever comedic project you come up with. So it is imperative that people are shocked into stopping this.
I think that's a narrow idea of what Christianity is — csalisbury
The emotional tone is high, and you can see the defenses against change play out — csalisbury
Point of all of this? I guess: be very skeptical of studies that involve surveys, and 'markets solve everything' approaches to academia. — csalisbury
I think it's better not to go down this kind of path. — csalisbury
I'd invite you to think about the implications of the relationship between character and manipulation you describe when applied generally. It's a slippery slope. — csalisbury
Ha! That is rich! A moral hard line is a slippery slope! You'll have to spell out those implications if you want me to think about them. — unenlightened
Russell Group university accused of Soviet-style censorship
Camilla Turner 7 hrs ago
A Russell Group university has been accused of Soviet-style censorship after requiring new humanities courses to “move away” from a “white, Eurocentric” curriculum. — counterpunch
You sacrifice yourself for a cause for action that nobody will notice. — god must be atheist
Indeed, no good deed ever goes unpunished, usually by crucifixion. Principles are an expensive luxury, and not recommended for comfort lovers. — unenlightened
Sacrificing anything of value for nothing, — god must be atheist
My bailiwick was outreach in high risk settings. I decided I would try a behavioral test in a high risk setting (an adult book store's basement cruising and video area). The idea was that I would propose oral sex first, and then see if they were willing to use a condom. Whether they were or not willing, was beside the point, because I didn't plan on giving a blow job in either case. As it happened, the first guy I tried this out on didn't appreciate the bait and switch, and forced me to carry through. He was bigger than me, so... In other settings--like the gay bathhouse--the participant observer approached worked better. The upshot was pretty much what we expected. A significant number of men were not willing to use condoms consistently. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.