On a practical basis, how the hell did you control for duplicate dogs? Only the dog's initials were recorded (and all the dogs had two names, somehow). When you're nine months in, and the same dog is back for the 87th time, will you know? How many duplicates in the 10000?
-
Show this thread
-
There was more, but I forget. I talked to a few people about this at the time, and then forgot about it - it didn't matter. An anonymous crackpot looking at dog balls partially fabricating their data (what it seemed like) is of no practical importance to me whatsoever.
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
My money was on "some screwball who collected twenty hours of scruffy numbers, and then multiplied every number by 50 and said they planned it". I did NOT know it was entirely fake. Just pretty obviously not real.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
So, why say nothing? Because I have no stake at all in un-gendering performative dog humping whatsisnames. I want to work on problems that *hurt people*, not *mildly inconvenience dogs*. I feel pretty silly now it's become important in retrospect. Should have written something.
1 reply 0 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
But, a final point: if you're looking for this level of detail in peer review - forget it. It's one thing to claim peer review is negligent because the ideas involved are ridiculous, but another to claim you snuck past a bunch of fake statistics.pic.twitter.com/r32SdMXdnA
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
You mean *descriptive* statistics. There are no test statistics, which is what people will probably think the above means. NO-ONE ANYWHERE does review like the above. Actually, in many ways, this Dog Park has LESS glaring errors than some Wansink papers.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, I'm not going to have some tiresome point about this issue like everyone else is right now. I just thought you'd find this interesting.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Paper: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346 … Article: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Old Nick
@sTeamTraen, did we talk about this at the time? I'm trying to reconstruct my memories on this one, didn't really take notes.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jamesheathers @sTeamTraen
There was skeptical coverage back in July:https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11158
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
(Which I happened to comment on at the time: https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1022757440717299712 … )
David Chapman added,
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @sTeamTraen
The Australian expression, my good bastard, is "picked it like a dirty nose". Good instincts.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.