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

[Chomsky]

This has always been this way. Always will.

Do you, like NOLA Dude, think this means we should dismiss the latest science?

Exactly. This is the process. You can't cheat it (the process).

 

[Lovebug]

So...its the latter then.....

shocking.

He is in the WH, he is a convicted felon.
Just stating the facts.
Whatever the gal the OP is concerned about did, both should receive punishment fitting the crime.
I don't like hypocrisy or law breakers.

 

[Chomsky]

You seem to. You seem to think that peer review is absolutely going to catch every instance of deliberate fraud. You don't know what peer review does, it's very clear from your unrealistic expectations. Peer review looks to find errors and determine relevance and originality of articles. There's a lot of due diligence, you just don't see or understand it. You think that because it is possible to deliberately employ fraud successfully and get a paper published, that the whole of the peer review system is crap. It an astounding combination of hubris and ignorance regarding the system, but you're there.

And they have completely dismissed the peer review and study/experiment re-creation that takes place after the initial publication.

 

[ataraxia]

The thread is about Harvard and Francesca Gino. Therefore, discussing them both seems relevant. If you struggle with following along then that is totally on you. There is plenty of time if you want to catch up.

That's what you say. But that's not what it's really about. No one gives a $hit about Francesca Gino.

This is about using this one situation to discredit Harvard, and science in general. This is all about a massive Crusade against science and academic centers being waged by Trump and his supporters.

They think this is going to make America Great Again? LOL no. They are sawing off the branch they are sitting on- the very thing that makes America so great. Be careful with all that energetic and enthusiastic sawing.

 

[TamleeB]

In general, I don't think it will.

Ten years might be a bit much, but the process of peer review resulting in adoption usually takes quite a few years. It's the nature of the beast.

I hope it does change, it should not take 10 years. That is not acceptable.

 

[Napoleon]

No- the MAGA crowd is discrediting a century and a half of climate change science and a century of safety and efficacy of vaccines based on this mindset, and the latest recommendations from physicians and the CDC during a deadly pandemic when all our lives were in danger. This mindset is becoming license to ignore stuff you don't like politically.

I would take the latest science seriously- even if it is changing all the time. This is a dangerous mindset. Potentially deadly, in fact.

Science is the best we have, even if there is an occasional woman in the business school you find that may have fudged her data and was found later.

This is not a thread for you to spout off about “MAGA” with unrelated tributaries. What is dangerous is the profound failure of the peer review process as illustrated in this case. What is dangerous is people, such as yourself, who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about but leverage argumentum ad verecundiam to claim to know what the “latest science” is based on hokum they read in a journal anyway.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I hope it does change, it should not take 10 years. That is not acceptable.

But it is acceptable that a 34 count felon has the nuke codes.

 

[ataraxia]

I hope it does change, it should not take 10 years. That is not acceptable.

That's rare- but it does happen.

I still would not ignore climate change science or the latest vaccine recommendations.

Just like I still would not recommend avoiding all commercial flights because there was a crash in Thailand once.

 

[TamleeB]

That's what you say. But that's not what it's really about. No one gives a $hit about Francesca Gino.

This is about using this one situation to discredit Harvard, and science in general. This is all about a massive Crusade against science and academic centers being waged by Trump and his supporters.

They think this is going to make America Great Again? LOL no. They are sawing off the branch they are sitting on- the very thing that makes America so great. Be careful with all that energetic and enthusiastic sawing.

I will stick with the actual subject of the thread. Which is Francesca Gino and Harvard. I will note your attempted distraction. It’s all good. It clearly is not working.

 

[Napoleon]

But it is acceptable that a 34 count felon has the nuke codes.

You were fine with them being in the hands of Mad Joe. Or the oligarchs who were really running things because the only one of them to be elected is one brain cell away from a potato.

 

[TamleeB]

But it is acceptable that a 34 count felon has the nuke codes.

Distraction. Your inability to focus on the subject matter of this thread is noted. Hopefully, you can do better. But I doubt it.

 

[Chomsky]

Then how does anyone know what to 'trust'?

You trust consensus.

If the experiment or study, repeatedly, within the community, produces consistent results, consensus builds.

Remember, when you're talking about research - you're talking about the unknown. There's many twists & turns traversed in the process of furthering knowledge.

 

[ataraxia]

This is not a thread for you to spout off about “MAGA” with unrelated tributaries. What is dangerous is the profound failure of the peer review process as illustrated in this case. What is dangerous is people, such as yourself, who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about but leverage argumentum ad verecundiam to claim to know what the “latest science” is based on hokum they read in a journal anyway.

This is ultimately all about MAGA. This stuff has always happened, but the only reason it's an issue as a whole thread now on the "Debate Politics" forum is because MAGA is waging a war against science and academia.

Why? Ultimately because they don't want stuff like that the Earth is more than 6000 years old or climate change science being taken seriously. That is not going to make America great again. Quite the opposite.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

the actual subject of the thread.

The subject is trust. You get upset about a "ten year" deception by some rando, but you trust a 34 count felon with the nuke codes. The lack of balance is mindblowing.

 

[Irredentist]

This is not a thread for you to spout off about “MAGA” with unrelated tributaries. What is dangerous is the profound failure of the peer review process as illustrated in this case. What is dangerous is people, such as yourself, who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about but leverage argumentum ad verecundiam to claim to know what the “latest science” is based on hokum they read in a journal anyway.

What would you want to change about the peer review process?

 

[ataraxia]

I will stick with the actual subject of the thread. Which is Francesca Gino and Harvard. I will note your attempted distraction. It’s all good. It clearly is not working.

Why should anyone care about ONE fraudster in the business school? And what does Harvard have to do with it?

 

[Chomsky]

There no such thing as settled science.

I hate to say it, but taken to the nth degree, there's some truth in this.

Though as a practical matter, it may not matter.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

the subject matter

is trust, straight from the OP. You get upset about a rando scientist being trusted, but you vote in a 34 count felon with nuclear weapons. Mind blowing.

 

[TamleeB]

The subject is trust. You get upset about a "ten year" deception by some rando, but you trust a 34 count felon with the nuke codes. The lack of balance is mindblowing.

I don’t see “trust” mentioned in the title of the thread. This is about Francesca being stripped of her tenure by Harvard University because she presented data that was false. I know it is a difficult task for you to conquer, but it would be lovely if you could stick with the subject of the thread. What do you think about both Harvard, and Gino? Can you actually offer an opinion, or are you just here in an attempt to disrupt the thread? Show me what ya got…

 

[Napoleon]

What would you want to change about the peer review process?

The root of the problem is the requirements of tenure to pump out papers like a mill. Universities care about the quantity of publications not the quality. That’s why pay-to-publish journals exist. That’s why the peer review process is so broken for journals which are supposed to be doing it.

 

[TamleeB]

I hate to say it, but taken to the nth degree, there's some truth in this.

Though as a practical matter, it may not matter.

Personally, I believe there is a lot of truth to it.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You were fine with them being in the hands of Mad Joe. Or the oligarchs who were really running things because the only one of them to be elected is one brain cell away from a potato.

Your lot has no standing on insanity, you voted in 34 count felon for the most important position in the world. You don't get to point at anything else.

 

[Ikari]

I hope it does change, it should not take 10 years. That is not acceptable.

Not sure what you think you're going to change that's going to affect this case. If she was publishing on topics that people aren't very interested in or isn't very active, it could take some time for the discovery of fraud to be made. It was made, however. Seems to demonstrate that fundamentally, the system does work.

 

[Napoleon]

Your lot has no standing on insanity, you voted in 34 count felon for the most important position in the world. You don't to point at anything else.

The pot meets the kettle at last. Tell me more about how Mad Joe finally beat Medicaid.

 

[Ikari]

This is not a thread for you to spout off about “MAGA” with unrelated tributaries. What is dangerous is the profound failure of the peer review process as illustrated in this case. What is dangerous is people, such as yourself, who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about but leverage argumentum ad verecundiam to claim to know what the “latest science” is based on hokum they read in a journal anyway.

And what is your experience with publishing in peer reviewed journals?

lol