• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Good article (systemic suppression of skepticism in political science)

I see this as similar to the CBD, the takeover of ones original self by an ego oersonality that uses IQ to construct an altered reality in a certain feeling that a real honest inner self would fail in competition and that only a brilliantly played ego substitute can succeed. I see it as a soul illness. One feels worthless, but glories in an ego identity that fools all the smart people, until the fall, that is.
 
Peer Review, Peer Review. The gold standard of all science is Peer Review.

Turns out peer review is crap, and if you are famous in a community, the review is nothing more then a glance.
 
michal1980 said:
Peer Review, Peer Review. The gold standard of all science is Peer Review.

Turns out peer review is crap, and if you are famous in a community, the review is nothing more then a glance.
Click to expand...


Hey you stupid fuck! The study was debunked by peers review!
 
ivwshane said:
Hey you stupid fuck! The study was debunked by peers review!
Click to expand...

That didn't work well. It was published and accepted as fact for years before it was ever questioned publicly by anyone.

[edit]
Regardless, it got published in a respected publication. Lower-level peers (oxymoron?) were discouraged from questioning the study and data while respected peers never questioned it publicly.
 
Last edited:
Ichinisan said:
That didn't work well. It was published and accepted as fact for years before it was ever questioned publicly by anyone.
Click to expand...

You don't read your own links?

"So when LaCour and Green’s research was eventually published in December 2014 in Science."

How many years ago was December 2014?
 
Victorian Gray said:
You don't read your own links?

"So when LaCour and Green’s research was eventually published in December 2014 in Science."

How many years ago was December 2014?
Click to expand...

You can't trick a conservative with your commie math! It's however long ago it needs to be so they're right!


But seriously, here's a study that had discrepancies, the journal publishers could immediately see the issue and pulled the article....

Yet for MMGW lots of "skeptics" point out "issues" and yet the articles don't get pulled. The reason for that depends on if you have an "R" after your name.
 
Victorian Gray said:
You don't read your own links?

"So when LaCour and Green’s research was eventually published in December 2014 in Science."

How many years ago was December 2014?
Click to expand...

I read it hastily on my phone as the battery warnings were popping up. The article seems to describe these events lasting years. So I guess many people in the political science community were aware of the study and accepting it long before it was published...?

[edit]
My vague recollection of this line made me think it was published in 2013:
Slate/NY Mag said:
But back in 2013, the now-26-year-old Broockman, a self-identifying “political science nerd,” was so impressed by LaCour’s study that he wanted to run his own version of it with his own canvassers and his own survey sample.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What's with this "MMGW" / "CBD" talk going on here? I'm genuinely confused.

Are you guys criticizing the article?

Other than a misunderstanding about when LaCour's study was published, did I say the wrong thing?

Am I being associated with conservative ideology for some reason?
 
Ichinisan said:
What's with this "MMGW" / "CBD" talk going on here? I'm genuinely confused.

Are you guys criticizing the article?

Other than a misunderstanding about when LaCour's study was published, did I say the wrong thing?

Am I being associated with conservative ideology for some reason?
Click to expand...

Where does this part fit in: "systemic suppression of skepticism in political science". There certainly isn't anything in the article you linked to indicate any such thing.
 
Victorian Gray said:
Where does this part fit in: "systemic suppression of skepticism in political science". There certainly isn't anything in the article you linked to indicate any such thing.
Click to expand...

Now things have flipped: Really? Nothing? Did you read the article? It's what the entire article was about. All of Brookman's associates in the field (except his close friend) discouraged him from looking into it at every turn. Even an anonymous political science web forum suppressed his skepticism. The reasonings and motivations were laid out clearly. At several points, Brookman himself, despite his suspicions, did not want to look into it any further. The article pointed out a problem that should be fixed -- not denied or ignored.

Are you equating climate science with political science? 😵
 
Last edited:
Interesting piece, but to me it is a great example of how the field pushed out bad data quickly. Only 6 months after publication there was a well research rebuttal to the original article and one of the original authors of the piece promptly asked for the original paper to be retracted from Science. You can't fake it for long in science because other people use your research and if it doesn't align with what the author said then it draws immense questioning.

The very excitement of a grand finding actually held the article to a higher standard of proof. The article mentioned many additional studies based on the original paper were receiving grant funding, so even if the budget audit wasn't performed, this faked paper would have been outed soon.

I do not fault the other scientists that trusted Green. Not every scientist in the field will rush to attempt a $1M study, they have their own niches to work in.
 
Ichinisan said:
What's with this "MMGW" / "CBD" talk going on here? I'm genuinely confused.

Are you guys criticizing the article?

Other than a misunderstanding about when LaCour's study was published, did I say the wrong thing?

Am I being associated with conservative ideology for some reason?
Click to expand...

You are only partially innocent. You came back with:

"I like cheese.

...and turtles.

...and playing Nintendo." when sandorski was owed a serious answer. That's a telltale for CBD even if not an exclusive.

Then we had the some of the known CBD run in and proclaim that science dead.

The thread started to take on that characteristic smell of fish rotting at the head. My original post was only to suggest a connection between the ability to fabricate an altered reality possessed by a pathological liar and a CBDive. No implication was intended for you.
 
Ichinisan said:
Now things have flipped: Really? Nothing? Did you read the article? It's what the entire article was about. All of Brookman's associates in the field (except his close friend) discouraged him from looking into it at every turn. Even an anonymous political science web forum suppressed his skepticism. The reasonings and motivations were laid out clearly. At several points, Brookman himself, despite his suspicions, did not want to look into it any further. The article pointed out a problem that should be fixed -- not denied or ignored.

Are you equating climate science with political science? 😵
Click to expand...

I think some are trying to suggest that as in the gullibility of the political scientists shown by this example, the same thing must be happening in human caused climate change, There is no change but the scientists are afraid to question the lie that there is.

In the real world that I see, I believe this is a case of psychologically deranged person who is also a supposed scientist. The general assumption people normally make, in my opinion, is that scientists are honest people but with the occasional exception. The perfect place for the pathological liar, the child molester, and the criminal, is by hiding in organizations that do such things as infiltrate charities, schools and religious institutions, anywhere where one is conditioned to expect honesty and integrity, anywhere where one can gain an aura of authority and maintain a front.
 
Moonbeam said:
You are only partially innocent. You came back with:

"I like cheese.

...and turtles.

...and playing Nintendo." when sandorski was owed a serious answer. That's a telltale for CBD even if not an exclusive.
Click to expand...

Sandorski's post was:
sandorski said:
....and?
Click to expand...

With my nonsense reply, I hoped he would elaborate about what he actually wanted from me. When I made the post he quoted, I had absolutely nothing else to say. I still don't know what he wanted from me.

Moonbeam said:
Then we had the some of the known CBD run in and proclaim that science dead.

The thread started to take on that characteristic smell of fish rotting at the head. My original post was only to suggest a connection between the ability to fabricate an altered reality possessed by a pathological liar and a CBDive. No implication was intended for you.
Click to expand...
OK. I incorrectly assumed your comments were referring to the topic. Now it's clear that you were talking about non-specific members.
 
Subyman said:
Interesting piece, but to me it is a great example of how the field pushed out bad data quickly. Only 6 months after publication there was a well research rebuttal to the original article and one of the original authors of the piece promptly asked for the original paper to be retracted from Science. You can't fake it for long in science because other people use your research and if it doesn't align with what the author said then it draws immense questioning.

The very excitement of a grand finding actually held the article to a higher standard of proof. The article mentioned many additional studies based on the original paper were receiving grant funding, so even if the budget audit wasn't performed, this faked paper would have been outed soon.

I do not fault the other scientists that trusted Green. Not every scientist in the field will rush to attempt a $1M study, they have their own niches to work in.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seemed like Brookman was risking a lot by going against the advice of everyone in his field. I'm sure others would have noticed some of the same oddities, and I assume they would have experienced similar discouragement.
 
Even in this worst case scenario where everyone is in love with the results, we see it only took 6 months to debunk.
 
So, a study was published, and then peers came along, read it, reviewed it, and debunked it.

So, the point of this thread is that science and peer review still works?

Agreed.
 
Ichinisan said:
Sandorski's post was:


With my nonsense reply, I hoped he would elaborate about what he actually wanted from me. When I made the post he quoted, I had absolutely nothing else to say. I still don't know what he wanted from me.


OK. I incorrectly assumed your comments were referring to the topic. Now it's clear that you were talking about non-specific members.
Click to expand...

My response was a direct response to not seeing any "systemic suppression". If there was, the original study would still stand.
 
Ichinisan: With my nonsense reply, I hoped he would elaborate about what he actually wanted from me. When I made the post he quoted, I had absolutely nothing else to say. I still don't know what he wanted from me.

M: My impression was that your OP had no comment and the one sandorski asked, And" to only had a summary of facts. I think he, and I know I would have liked to know what those facts meant to you. Did you just want to share the information or do you have opinions about it you want to convey?


I: OK. I incorrectly assumed your comments were referring to the topic. Now it's clear that you were talking about non-specific members.

My first post was about the liar and my second about the one's gnashing their teeth about science being manipulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top