Read on Twitter
You're happily reading the newspaper and you suddenly come across an academic slappyfight.
You don't know the people involved, and it's not from your area.
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
There are some pretty good heuristics for who's full of shit.
Ready? https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1336201932952793089
You don't know the people involved, and it's not from your area.
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
There are some pretty good heuristics for who's full of shit.
Ready? https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1336201932952793089
Using Gelman's distinction from yesterday between the scientist and the politician, your job is to figure out who is who.
This doesn't make anyone necessarily correct, but it usually means the politician is acting in bad faith, as an ideologue, etc.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/12/07/unlike-mit-scientific-american-does-the-right-thing-and-flags-an-inaccurate-and-irresponsible-article-that-they-mistakenly-published/
This doesn't make anyone necessarily correct, but it usually means the politician is acting in bad faith, as an ideologue, etc.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/12/07/unlike-mit-scientific-american-does-the-right-thing-and-flags-an-inaccurate-and-irresponsible-article-that-they-mistakenly-published/
So, let's split these into the actions of (A) - authors and (C) critics.
1. HIDING BEHIND PEER REVIEW
(A)->(C) only. "Our paper was peer reviewed and your commentary isn't."
Peer review rarely checks any measure of accuracy, and hiding behind it is a rhetorical tactic.
1. HIDING BEHIND PEER REVIEW
(A)->(C) only. "Our paper was peer reviewed and your commentary isn't."
Peer review rarely checks any measure of accuracy, and hiding behind it is a rhetorical tactic.
The person who's saying this knows peer review is fallible. It's just a convenient position to take to avoid scrutiny, a mendacious little refuge of weak authors.
2. WHO'S TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE
Strongly (A) <-> (C).
Critics: "This paper is mean and horrible."
Authors: "You might not like the model's conclusions, but all the assumptions are reasonable and the numbers are right. Did we do anything wrong except hurt your feelings?"
OR
Strongly (A) <-> (C).
Critics: "This paper is mean and horrible."
Authors: "You might not like the model's conclusions, but all the assumptions are reasonable and the numbers are right. Did we do anything wrong except hurt your feelings?"
OR
Critics: "There are several transcription errors, and the authors mis-cite a key reference that changes the results."
Authors: *silence*
or
*changes subject*
Authors: *silence*
or
*changes subject*
I've been involved in commentaries where 20, 30 emails are sent between multiple parties, and NOT ONE has engaged with a single scientific detail of any presented evidence. Seriously. It's all just a discussion of timelines and process mixed in with tiresome outrage. No science.
3. ASSERTION OF AUTHORITY
Can be (A) or (C), usually (A).
Basically amounts to 'who are you, you bloody little young insufficiently senior non-tenured young person'.
Yes, this happens. Osmotic correctness due to the proximity of sequential years.
Can be (A) or (C), usually (A).
Basically amounts to 'who are you, you bloody little young insufficiently senior non-tenured young person'.
Yes, this happens. Osmotic correctness due to the proximity of sequential years.
I find this one particularly nauseating. If you get to claim that simply being alive and fancy for long enough makes you right by default, then I get to call the effect 'Magic Old'.
4. OSMOTIC RESPECTABILITY
Can be (A) or (C), usually (A).
Claiming that communication is wrong, irrelevant or untrustworthy simply because of the forum it is in.
Usual suspects: Twitter, PubPeer, blogs, listservs, etc.
Can be (A) or (C), usually (A).
Claiming that communication is wrong, irrelevant or untrustworthy simply because of the forum it is in.
Usual suspects: Twitter, PubPeer, blogs, listservs, etc.
More later, I got a job.
5. "NO U"
This is an (A) special, and an instantiation of 'more science is the only remedy for bad science', which is particularly stupid and monumentally inefficient position to take if something is demonstrably inaccurate or impossible.
This is an (A) special, and an instantiation of 'more science is the only remedy for bad science', which is particularly stupid and monumentally inefficient position to take if something is demonstrably inaccurate or impossible.
Say a physicist writes a paper which includes the phrase "therefore, by the transitive property, all owls are brown".
(They wouldn't, but bear with me.)
You don't need to recreate their study from scratch. You just need a picture of a snowy owl.
(They wouldn't, but bear with me.)
You don't need to recreate their study from scratch. You just need a picture of a snowy owl.
I don't need to know shit about cream cakes to tell you that a nutritionist hasn't accurately reported sample sizes.
I don't need clinical psychology practice to tell you your study of therapy is nonsensical because your risk ratios have negative numbers.
I don't need clinical psychology practice to tell you your study of therapy is nonsensical because your risk ratios have negative numbers.
