Social Researchers wrote intentionally dumb papers to prove that academic journals will accept them

[IGotAHugePeckah]

I think the war on fake news is completely futile. Like the old saying goes, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.

It is information overload and people have no time or desire to fact check what they're reading/hearing. It's much more desirable to just accept facts that conform to your world view at face value and disregard the ones that don't.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Psychology and sociology are inherently pseudo sciences. To claim anything is factual in those fields will always be suspect. DSMV is a mess. Guess I just have a defiance disorder though. They need to add ODCD to the text, aka obsessive disorder creation disorder. Whatever sells the meds I guess.

 

[PhitePhan]

That isn't what happened. They wrote studies that should raise questions from an 8 year old. Not once, not twice, but over and over again.

They were blown away that the studies were all accepted. These guys were looking to expose this, and ended up shocked by how bad it actually was.

And this isn't just crappy social science papers, a surprising # of medical studies are also found be not replicable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

This was also highlighted by Ionnides. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Then once you dig into known biases (funding, healthy user, etc.) and further recognize that clinical trials are nearly completely controlled by those funding them things start to get suspect really quick. The fact that a clinical trial can have negative outcomes that will never see the light of day is nearly criminal (file drawer effect).

The solution is fairly straightforward though, we need replication. If two or more independent researchers come to the same independent conclusions that goes a long way to supporting the outcomes. Also, strong study designs are also critical (e.g. Sufficient n, sufficient blinding, appropriate controls and duration, etc). The reality is that you can manipulate a research trial in a number of ways...

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I think the best approach is to proportion your belief in the results of a study to the extent to which you require that belief in some arena where it would be verified or have consequences.

Insofar as the results are entirely fraudulent you of course have no chance, but if those results don't meaningfully influence you then you won't get caught.

 

[WTF2008]

I literally linked people who have looked into the matter and reached the same conclusions.

Your link references people who got a handful of meticulously written but false papers accepted. My first link was 120 computer science papers that were essentially gibberish. That's a hard science field and over 100 published fake papers by 1 guy.

You may not think it is the case but the information is out there that it's not just a social science issue. When I link that information, I don't see the point in ignoring it.

But it's "science" so it must be true.
Science is the new god. Just believe it because you can't disprove it.

 

[ocean size]

From dog rape to white men in chains: We fooled the biased academic left with fake studies

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1575219002
________________________________'

Never forget. Any story that says it has been peer reviewed, that isn't physics, chemistry, math, aka hard science, is absolutely suspect, and should be given no weight unless you have read the study yourself.

The phrase peer reviewed study, should be given no appeal to authority. If anything, that phrase should make you suspect.

You can peer review a new way to measure gravity. Either those measurements are accurate, or they aren't.

How does one peer review the way a mass shooting is counted?

How does one peer review if Dr. Suess is racist?

Social science is to science, as the WWE is to fighting.

Discuss.......

Shit post for the following reasons:

• peer reviewed physics and chemistry articles aren't above being bullshit 12
• math articles, while not really science are bullshit sometimes as well 3
• mistaking the fact some critical theory and social issues journals are the fighting equivalent of WWE is like saying that since WWE exists, all fighting must be fake
• you can definitely peer review how to count a shooting.
• The journals the grievance studies people published in, while some were 'science', generally were in critical theory or social issues related journal that almost no one would expect objective scholarship describing the real world. They weren't in mainstream social science journals that any decent journalist would pick up and run with (except to make fun of).

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

IMO this is being used ITT as one more false-narrative "Everything is a conspiracy and you can't trust "the media" data point.
It's full of shit.

 

[zebby23]

Good thread. I’m going to live my life from
Now on thinking everything is bullshit except the bible, that is the only truth. The ONLY truth

 

[JamesRussler]

From dog rape to white men in chains: We fooled the biased academic left with fake studies

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1575219002
________________________________'

Never forget. Any story that says it has been peer reviewed, that isn't physics, chemistry, math, aka hard science, is absolutely suspect, and should be given no weight unless you have read the study yourself.

The phrase peer reviewed study, should be given no appeal to authority. If anything, that phrase should make you suspect.

You can peer review a new way to measure gravity. Either those measurements are accurate, or they aren't.

How does one peer review the way a mass shooting is counted?

How does one peer review if Dr. Suess is racist?

Social science is to science, as the WWE is to fighting.

Discuss.......

I agree completely. Most of academia outside of STEM is completely worthless.

 

[trident]

And this isn't just crappy social science papers, a surprising # of medical studies are also found be not replicable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

This was also highlighted by Ionnides. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Then once you dig into known biases (funding, healthy user, etc.) and further recognize that clinical trials are nearly completely controlled by those funding them things start to get suspect really quick. The fact that a clinical trial can have negative outcomes that will never see the light of day is nearly criminal (file drawer effect).

The solution is fairly straightforward though, we need replication. If two or more independent researchers come to the same independent conclusions that goes a long way to supporting the outcomes. Also, strong study designs are also critical (e.g. Sufficient n, sufficient blinding, appropriate controls and duration, etc). The reality is that you can manipulate a research trial in a number of ways...

When you throw products in the mix with potentially very large returns and base their efficacy on these "peer reviewed" papers, the system is ripe for corruption and dangerous misinformation.

 

[trident]

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result. Our study included 18 different measurements—weight, cholesterol, sodium, blood protein levels, sleep quality, well-being, etc.—from 15 people. (One subject was dropped.) That study design is a recipe for false positives.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/io9.gi...hinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800/amp

 

[Andy Capp]

And this isn't just crappy social science papers, a surprising # of medical studies are also found be not replicable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

This was also highlighted by Ionnides. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Then once you dig into known biases (funding, healthy user, etc.) and further recognize that clinical trials are nearly completely controlled by those funding them things start to get suspect really quick. The fact that a clinical trial can have negative outcomes that will never see the light of day is nearly criminal (file drawer effect).

The solution is fairly straightforward though, we need replication. If two or more independent researchers come to the same independent conclusions that goes a long way to supporting the outcomes. Also, strong study designs are also critical (e.g. Sufficient n, sufficient blinding, appropriate controls and duration, etc). The reality is that you can manipulate a research trial in a number of ways...

Certainly, it's true there is a dearth of replication studies because they do not have any incentives like original research does. If the political and academic will were there, however, it would be easy to overcome this problem by increasing the attractiveness of pursuing replication studies via grants and other incentives.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Cops have covered up crimes before and planted evidence before. Therefore, don't believe anything in the criminal justice system.

El Chapo might be getting framed. Scott Peterson may be innocent. You never know maaaaaaaan

 

[TheComebackKid]

Cops have covered up crimes before and planted evidence before. Therefore, don't believe anything in the criminal justice system.

I think the proper response would be to trust but verify. If you can't sufficiently verify something yourself then you shouldn't blindly trust it.

That is especially true when it comes the criminal justice system.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I think the proper response would be to trust but verify. If you can't sufficiently verify something yourself then you shouldn't blindly trust it.

That is especially true when it comes the criminal justice system.

Wow, this is actually a pretty sensible response.

Though in the CJ system it's very hard for everyday people to verify something. We don't have access to court documents, evidence, etc.

For research, it's a lot easier to discern. You read what data they used, what their methods were, and decide how valid it is.

 

[TheComebackKid]

For research, it's a lot easier to discern. You read what data they used, what their methods were, and decide how valid it is.

Many posters here ridicule me for taking this approach rather than just appealing to authority like they do. This is what every adult should be doing.

 

[VivaRevolution]

......

 

[TidWell]

This from Sky news in Australia, what do you guys think?

 

[Koro_11]

Well ya, the left dominates academia, and young people are gullible and don’t understand how the world works yet, so the idea of revolution and destruction is sexy to them.

 

[Sketch]

Well ya, the left dominates academia.

It’s nearly a four (04) minute video and you reply within one (01) minute. Please watch the video before commenting next time.