On the other hand, since quants use a demonic crypological device known as a "spreadsheet" for their data, which are comprised of these incomprehensible things called "numbers," the process is inherently non-transparent and by definition is fraudulent. So quant=bad, qual=good.

Why are you defending qually fraud? Why don't you want to root it out?

Is some qual trying to cover up the multiple instances of fraud by Ambrose?

Ambrose is not a quant social scientist. Hence, his fraud is evident for the world to see.

well that seems arbitrary. lucky thing that Ambrose seems to have managed multiple instances of serial fraud regardless.

Hmmmm...fake interviews, misrepresentation of documents, incorrect quoting of primary sources, plagiarism...Ambrose had a long history of it. Granted, according to the quals on this thread these things are ok because they are done "transparently"...however that works...

Wouldn't interviews (plural) count as multiple instances?

No.

Why can't you look at his list of 267 laws and, as a reader, decide whether it contains laws that shouldn't be included, or doesn't contain laws that should be included?

I have not read the book in question myself, but according to other interlocutors on this thread many of the coding decisions that Mayhew utilizes for his statistical analysis are not explicitly outlined in his book. This is non transparent.

He has a track record of fraud going all the way back to his dissertation.

What fraud are you specifically referring to?

What about Mayhew's coding do you not find transparent? I'm happy to discuss his coding with you, which is all in the book. Which aspect did you not understand? Why can't you look at his list of 267 laws and, as a reader, decide whether it contains laws that shouldn't be included, or doesn't contain laws that should be included? Isn't that what you claim is the dispositive test for transparency, whether the reader has all the info to decide for himself?

Ambrose was not limited to one case of fraud. He has a track record of fraud going all the way back to his dissertation. He is the definitive example of a serial offender. He got away with it for decades, despite being one of the most popular scholars in the world. Stapel pales in comparison to Ambrose.

Wouldn't interviews (plural) count as multiple instances?

How can a single case demonstrate that something is commonplace?

the Ambrose case demonstrates that serial (undetected) fraud is still common among social science quals.

Unlike the Stapel case, Ambrose's reputed fraud was not serial, but allegedly limited to one instance (i.e., the Eisenhower interviews).

How so? He told you exactly what his criteria were, which sources he used (all in the appendix) and which laws made it onto the list, with a shirt narrative of each of the 267 laws. How is that not transparent?

Because, according to you, a large number of Mayhew's coding decisions are not transparent to the reader.

Familiarize yourself with a little something known as an "online appendix." Say it with me, now...online appendix. It is a VERY common thing in use.

I will agree it is tiresome to "debate" quant idiots. They understand neither science nor basic logic. For quant morons "very common" somehow equates scientific transparency. Again, the Stapel case demonstrates that however "common" online appendices are, serial (undetected) fraud is still common among social science quants.

"nytimes.com" stephen ambrose fraud

The stories in the New York Times refer to plagiarism, not research fraud, per se.

This is why the thread is still going. You idiots keeps making unsubstantiated claims, prompting numerous requests for evidence that go unheeded, while you need to be spoon-fed on how to use basic tools such as google.

You lie like only a quant can.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/stephen_e_ambrose/index.html

First result when I typed the following into Google:

"nytimes.com" stephen ambrose fraud

That was tough.

You've already said that it's transparent. So we know where you stand. If you keep trying to change your tune, you'll be accused of not having read the book.

Also, you do know that the 267 laws are chosen out of a denominator of several thousands, right? So he's dealing with several thousand laws, 267 of which he coded as "important."

This renders the work/research non transparent.

Also, you do know that the 267 laws are chosen out of a denominator of several thousands, right? So he's dealing with several thousand laws, 267 of which he coded as "important."

You like to make unsubstantiated assertions that convince no one and make you look the fool.

No, it doesn't.

This is simply not true. Learn what an appendix is and how to read one. Then go about your day.