• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:542] Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOLA Dude said:
But we should trust the "experts" according to the left.
Click to expand...
Yes in general you should
That's according to intelligent people
Do you do your oww medical diagnoses, for example? No? Lol
 
j brown's body said:
You all argue for disinformation on the one hand, and decry it on the other.

Its not a healthy skepticism. Its a cynical, self-righteous attack on expertise.
Click to expand...

It should be buyer beware. We’ve had too many times liberals/media got it wrong, even intentionally. The Covington kids, Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, Steele Dossier, Rovember, celebrity enforcements matter. The list goes on.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
It should be buyer beware. We’ve had too many times liberals/media got it wrong, even intentionally. The Covington kids, Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, Steele Dossier, Rovember, celebrity enforcements matter. The list goes on.
Click to expand...
I would recommend keeping up with and taking the latest science seriously- even if it’s constantly changing. Even if you learn about one corrupt scientist.

Has nothing to do with the Steele Dossier.
 
Last edited:
I've met Francesca Gino and I'm disappointed that this turned out to be true. But under the circumstances it's the right move from Harvard.

I was also a big fan of Dan Ariely's books about 15 years ago. It's a shame that he seems to be tied up in this scandal too. :(
 
Cope said:
And trusting, what and where does that get us?

You see it's quite easy to say one or the other is 'better', it would take years to fully flesh out which one actually is. If the people we trust are lying, we are doing ourselves no good.

I don't promote disbelief, just skepticism, a healthy dose of it. There are plenty of people in this very thread that could use some
Click to expand...

Trusting science have led to our modern advanced science. That yes scepticism can be good while it also means willingnes to accept theories and facts backed up with strong evidence. Even if it goes against your personal believe.

While scepticism have to today become an excuse to deny facts and science. Like for example the need for action on climate change backed up with overwhelming evidence. Just like it's been an excuse to support known liers that erode instead of strength science.

www.politico.eu

The US brain drain has begun

The White House appears hell-bent on destroying not just economic and political paradigms, but a higher education system that really did make America great.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
 
Linuxcooldude said:
It should be buyer beware. We’ve had too many times liberals/media got it wrong, even intentionally. The Covington kids, Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, Steele Dossier, Rovember, celebrity enforcements matter. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

Media can some times get thing wrong while not as much as you claim and believe. Also the solution from the right have not been to create better and more trusted media outlets. Instead they have created alternatives that are much worse then it comes to telling the truth and informing the viewers.

www.theguardian.com

Power and scandal: how Murdoch drove the UK, US and Australia to the right

He built a global conservative media empire, but the phone-hacking scandal and Dominion libel action almost undid the divisive mogul
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.poynter.org

Survey: NPR's listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed - Poynter

From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.
www.poynter.org www.poynter.org

While a big problem have also been false balances. That the media have focused to much on being "fair" to both side instead of informing the viewers.

news.northwestern.edu

False balance in news coverage of climate change makes it harder to address the crisis

Bothsidesism — also referred to as false balance reporting — can damage the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and lead audiences to doubt the scientific consensus on pressing societal challenges like climate change, a new Northwestern University study has found.
news.northwestern.edu news.northwestern.edu

This become a bigger problem when you have for the last decades have economical and political interests so openly spreading lies.

news.harvard.edu

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu


theconversation.com

Why do millions of Americans believe the 2020 presidential election was ‘stolen’ from Donald Trump?

Nearly a third of Americans say they believe that Donald Trump was the real winner of the last election, and the ratio is twice as high among Republican voters.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
Lefties confused by how much corruption is being exposed now that Trump is pushing for Government Transparency, and fight against the Propaganda and corruption in America ....
View attachment 67571892
Click to expand...
You think this case of corruption in science was found because of Trump’s efforts at transparency? That such cases were not found before?

And that’s why you trust the guy telling you about secret Kenyan birth certificates, cat eating Haitians, cancer causing wind turbines, and white genocides in S Africa to do it?
 
NOLA Dude said:
A renowned Harvard University professor was stripped of her tenure and fired after an investigation found she fabricated data on multiple studies focused on dishonesty.

Francesca Gino, a celebrated behavioral scientist at Harvard Business School, was let go after the school’s top governing board determined she tweaked observations in four studies so that their findings boosted her hypotheses, GHB reported.

Harvard administrators notified business faculty that Gino was out of a job in a closed-door meeting this past week, the outlet reported.
nypost.com

Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

A renowned Harvard University professor was stripped of her tenure and fired after an investigation found she allegedly manipulated data to support multiple studies she conducted.
nypost.com nypost.com

We are supposed to trust the "experts" right? It reminded me of this:

Click to expand...


Wait, you don't trust institutions because people that operate within them are held accountable by their peers?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Trusting science have led to our modern advanced science. That yes scepticism can be good while it also means willingnes to accept theories and facts backed up with strong evidence. Even if it goes against your personal believe.

While scepticism have to today become an excuse to deny facts and science. Like for example the need for action on climate change backed up with overwhelming evidence. Just like it's been an excuse to support known liers that erode instead of strength science.

www.politico.eu

The US brain drain has begun

The White House appears hell-bent on destroying not just economic and political paradigms, but a higher education system that really did make America great.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
Click to expand...
That call to action, at great expense, and cost of lifestyle on assumptions not yet proven is a big big risk.

One that most people aren't willing to take, INCLUDING those advocating OTHERS do it.
 
ataraxia said:
We should take the latest science seriously.
Click to expand...
We should take it with a grain of salt. Medical studies, for example, are notoriously poor. The literature is inundated with junk. Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. We should pass a law that prohibits federal funding of medical research unless they have a trained statistician/methodologist on their team who knows what they're doing.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
It should be buyer beware. We’ve had too many times liberals/media got it wrong, even intentionally. The Covington kids, Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, Steele Dossier, Rovember, celebrity enforcements matter. The list goes on.
Click to expand...
Right and that same media all lied about Joe Biden having cognitive issues. The only people who still think the media is credible are democrats.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Media can some times get thing wrong while not as much as you claim and believe. Also the solution from the right have not been to create better and more trusted media outlets. Instead they have created alternatives that are much worse then it comes to telling the truth and informing the viewers.

www.theguardian.com

Power and scandal: how Murdoch drove the UK, US and Australia to the right

He built a global conservative media empire, but the phone-hacking scandal and Dominion libel action almost undid the divisive mogul
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.poynter.org

Survey: NPR's listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed - Poynter

From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.
www.poynter.org www.poynter.org

While a big problem have also been false balances. That the media have focused to much on being "fair" to both side instead of informing the viewers.

news.northwestern.edu

False balance in news coverage of climate change makes it harder to address the crisis

Bothsidesism — also referred to as false balance reporting — can damage the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and lead audiences to doubt the scientific consensus on pressing societal challenges like climate change, a new Northwestern University study has found.
news.northwestern.edu news.northwestern.edu

This become a bigger problem when you have for the last decades have economical and political interests so openly spreading lies.

news.harvard.edu

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu


theconversation.com

Why do millions of Americans believe the 2020 presidential election was ‘stolen’ from Donald Trump?

Nearly a third of Americans say they believe that Donald Trump was the real winner of the last election, and the ratio is twice as high among Republican voters.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
🤣 🤣 🤣
 
NOLA Dude said:
Their peers like the peer review process that totally missed her fraud 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

I don't know the specifics of this case. If you manipulate data to reach a conclusion, that's not flaw in the process or the conclusion, that's a flaw in data. The ability to 'fool' science by manipulating / fabricating data exists. The process is only as good as the data that is fed to it. If a scientist gathers data, the only way to prove the veracity of that data is for many researchers to collect data. That can take time, even years, depending on the nature of the science. Peer review cannot catch everything immediately, it's just the best system for correcting science that currently exists.

What is your broader point? That RFK Jr is right or something? That we can't trust science or "experts"? Have the courage to speak your point.
 
All this attacking higher education because of a few bad apples will not end well.
I recall back when the last government attacked higher education, we got Albert Einstein.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I don't know the specifics of this case. If you manipulate data to reach a conclusion, that's not flaw in the process or the conclusion, that's a flaw in data. The ability to 'fool' science by manipulating / fabricating data exists. The process is only as good as the data that is fed to it. If a scientist gathers data, the only way to prove the veracity of that data is for many researchers to collect data. That can take time, even years, depending on the nature of the science. Peer review cannot catch everything immediately, it's just the best system for correcting science that currently exists.

What is your broader point? That RFK Jr is right or something? That we can't trust science or "experts"? Have the courage to speak your point.
Click to expand...
 
Crakhobarbie said:
All this attacking higher education because of a few bad apples will not end well.
I recall back when the last government attacked higher education, we got Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...
Higher education is in trouble because many college freshman in this generation can't so much as read a book. And that's not hyperbole.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Click to expand...

This is ludicrous.

You wouldn’t believe the guardrails the FDA has to ensure studies are designed, performed, and interpreted. And the journals mentioned above do an outstanding job of editing and reviewing published papers.

Your alternative is to just trust the nuttiest guy in the room that says stuff you like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom