political science job rumors

Things may get weird. Trying to fix the problems.

1. Howdy
   Unregistered

   "You are unfairly trying to make hay on the basis of a very unique circumstance. This is an instance when the interviewee died before the interviews were publicized. It is also a circumstance where the author died before the putative fraud came to light. If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."

   Interviews are not unique. Nor is it unique for participants to die. How do you think Ambrose would have a "reasonable explanation" for fabricating hundreds of hours of interviews??? This is absolutely absurd. Point blank, you are indeed a troll, correct?

   ILP, on Ambrose's hundreds of hours of fabricated interviews with Eisenhower: "...Ambrose is not an academic historian. I am surprised anyone would critically scrutinize his writings. Moreover, I am certain people were well aware of Ambrose's "errors", but no one cared...If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. anon
   Unregistered

   "Journal "replication" rules and King's commentary is not about standardization, it is about preventing quant social science fraud."

   No it isn't. You've been corrected on this already, so stop lying.

   "Something that is easy to perpetrate (e.g., Stapel)."

   We don't know if it's easy or hard to perpetrate because the only evidence you've provided is Stapel.

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. anon
   Unregistered

   Probably accurate to assume that the interview transcripts didn't become public until after the interviewee died for a reason.

   Firstly, how many quals will wait until their interviewee are dead to publish.

   Secondly, we should be reticent to condemn Ambrose because he is not alive to defend himself.

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. anon
   Unregistered

   You've been corrected on this already

   Your gibberish does not amount to a correction.

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. anon
   Unregistered

   Interviews are not unique. Nor is it unique for participants to die.

   It is extremely unusual for interviewees to die before publication.

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. anon
   Unregistered

   How do you think Ambrose would have a "reasonable explanation" for fabricating hundreds of hours of interviews???

   The evidence that Ambrose fabricated his Eisenhower interviews is circumstantial. If Ambrose were alive, perhaps he could reasonably explain the discrepancy evident in the current records.

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. anon
   Unregistered

   "Your gibberish does not amount to a correction."

   empty bluster, but that's fine if you'll stop lying.

   You've been schooled on this a few times, but here's nona's succinct knockdown of your silliness, from page 90 of this ridiculous thread:

   ILP: "As King aptly notes, there are no enforceable rules requiring authors to release their data (and other materials required for replication)."

   nona: "No. What this should read is "As King aptly notes, there are many rules requiring authors to release their data (and other materials required for replication), but these rules provide no single framework for the sharing of replication data." When it comes down to it, what King is really pushing is the use of the dataverse system for the sharing of replication data. As others have pointed out, you didn't really pick up on this since you are so shockingly ignorant of research norms in political science."

   Posted 1 year ago #

8. Howdy
   Unregistered

   "Secondly, we should be reticent to condemn Ambrose because he is not alive to defend himself."

   Any other qualifications you want to throw in ad hoc? How does Ambrose being dead expunge the very clear case of fraud? By your reasoning we should assume the Piltdown Man fiasco was good science since the perpetrator did not have the ability to defend their work...

   ILP, on Ambrose's hundreds of hours of fabricated interviews with Eisenhower: "...Ambrose is not an academic historian. I am surprised anyone would critically scrutinize his writings. Moreover, I am certain people were well aware of Ambrose's "errors", but no one cared...If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."

   Posted 1 year ago #

9. anon
   Unregistered

   "we should be reticent to condemn Ambrose because he is not alive to defend himself."

   I feel this way about Pol Pot. And the guy who pulled of the Piltdown Man hoax.

   Posted 1 year ago #

10. anon
    Unregistered

    When it comes down to it, what King is really pushing is the use of the dataverse system for the sharing of replication data.

    Why?

    Posted 1 year ago #

11. anon
    Unregistered

    "Why?"

    Seriously? Do not remember having this exact conversation pages ago, and then a few seconds ago? Both qual and quant research are never going to be perfect, and standardizing publicity and replication practices can only help. That's science.

    Posted 1 year ago #

12. anon
    Unregistered

    How does Ambrose being dead expunge the very clear case of fraud?

    I did not write Ambrose's death expunges the record, but it is nonetheless true that the allegation of making up interview data surfaced after his death. Thus, he is not given the opportunity to explain the situation. That needs to be taken into account.

    Posted 1 year ago #

13. anon
    Unregistered

    standardizing . . . replication practices

    On the face of it, "standardizing replication practices" has no meaning.

    Posted 1 year ago #

14. Howdy
    Unregistered

    "I did not write Ambrose's death expunges the record, but it is nonetheless true that the allegation of making up interview data surfaced after his death."

    Because of VERY lax qual standards and VERY low diligence amongst his qual peers.

    "Thus, he is not given the opportunity to explain the situation. That needs to be taken into account."

    Yeah, I'm sure he could explain how he used Doc Brown's time machine to turn a few hours of interviews into hundreds of hours.

    ILP, on Ambrose's hundreds of hours of fabricated interviews with Eisenhower: "...Ambrose is not an academic historian. I am surprised anyone would critically scrutinize his writings. Moreover, I am certain people were well aware of Ambrose's "errors", but no one cared...If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."

    Posted 1 year ago #

15. anon
    Unregistered

    "On the face of it, "standardizing replication practices" has no meaning."

    Of course it has meaning, you moron. If one group of scholars say that a result is replicated if X, while another group insists on X and Y, while still another group says X and Z (and a little bit of Y), etc etc, then there's a deeper problem in the discipline to be worked out. Thinking carefully about methods and data addresses this. Maybe X is sufficient for certain kinds of data and methods, while other kinds of research require X and Y, and still others only need Y, but with careful consultation and debate, everyone concludes that Z is irrelevant regardless of methods and kinds of data. Coming up with standards helps us figure out these subtleties and do better science, with each of us understanding what counts as meaningful replication for particular kinds of research.

    Posted 1 year ago #

16. anon
    Unregistered

    Of course it has meaning, you moron. If one group of scholars say that a result is replicated if X, while another group insists on X and Y, while still another group says X and Z (and a little bit of Y), etc etc, then there's a deeper problem in the discipline to be worked out. Thinking carefully about methods and data addresses this. Maybe X is sufficient for certain kinds of data and methods, while other kinds of research require X and Y, and still others only need Y, but with careful consultation and debate, everyone concludes that Z is irrelevant regardless of methods and kinds of data. Coming up with standards helps us figure out these subtleties and do better science, with each of us understanding what counts as meaningful replication for particular kinds of research.

    Either this is absolute gibberish, or you are arguing that quant social scientists should be doing research based on the same set of biases. I am not sure which is more likely, or which is more damning.

    In any event, it is outright stupid to believe/hold that journals are imposing "replication" policies (and King is calling for stronger such policies) for the reasons you are indicating.

    Posted 1 year ago #

17. anon
    Unregistered

    VERY low diligence amongst his qual peers

    That is seemingly the case.

    I have not Ambrose's books, but it is possible that his writings are so vanilla/banal/non-controversial that no one cared to verify his sources, or people simply didn't care when they did note discrepancies.

    Posted 1 year ago #

18. anon
    Unregistered

    "Either this is absolute gibberish, ..."

    Of course it isn't, you're just too stupid to try to grasp it.

    Everyone agrees roughly on what replication is: repeating the result under sufficiently similar conditions. But repeating results in high energy physics (i.e. a few highly controlled and very expensive experiments) is obviously different from, say, cell biology (a whole bunch of experiments within a given model system), which in turn is different from public opinion research (where access to survey instruments and original data is vital) which again is very different from ethnographic research on social movements (where there seem to be no clear rules for replication or verification in qualitative history and political science, but anthropology and nursing have more established norms). Standardizing data access rules and replication procedures for quantitative research is our part of the puzzle, but I wouldn't expect the rules that King endorses to fit ready-made to behavioral neuroscience or molecular genetics.

    It's a subtle point I'm making relative to your idiotic norm, ILP, I'll grant you that.

    "In any event, it is outright stupid to believe/hold that journals are imposing "replication" policies (and King is calling for stronger such policies) for the reasons you are indicating."

    And yet that's exactly what King and others are doing: calling for clearer and more uniform standards vis-a-vis data access and replication. The fact that you keep disputing this only makes you seem that much more stupid - which is impressive, given how high you set the bar on stupid, I'll grant you that also.

    Posted 1 year ago #

19. anon
    Unregistered

    calling for clearer and more uniform standards vis-a-vis data access and replication.

    To minimize the opportunities for fraud among quant social scientists, not to impose uniformity on researchers (as you stupidly seem to be arguing).

    Moreover, the kind of uniformity you seemingly calling for would not require making data publicly available.

    Posted 1 year ago #

20. anon
    Unregistered

    "To minimize the opportunities for fraud among quant social scientists"

    No, that's your obsession. It is not shared by Gary King or anyone else who writes on this issues. You've been shown this, repeatedly, yet you insist on lying, even though no one is buying your ridiculous bluster.

    Show us one single instance where the endorsement of more uniform policies for data access and replication have been motivated by, or explicitly tailored toward preventing, research fraud in political science.

    And not even limited to political science: when have calls for greater uniformity and transparency vis-a-vis data and replication been motivated by and tailed toward preventing fraud? Not preventing errors, or carelessness, or "cutting corners", or even research misconduct, but the specific form of misconduct you are obsessed with: fraud.

    Show us one single, clear instance that supports your ridiculous claim.

    Posted 1 year ago #

21. anon
    Unregistered

    Show us one single, clear instance that supports your ridiculous claim.

    Here:

    "In most cases, many data sets associated with individual publications, and the related computer code and other information necessary to reproduce the published tables and figures from the input data, are not available unless you obtain permission of the original author, with no enforceable rules governing when access must be provided."

    Posted 1 year ago #

22. anon
    Unregistered

    ^ yet again, ILP, no mention of fraud here as the primary motivation, or as any consideration at all. Not even the slightest hint. Indeed, there is no suggestion here that access to data is much of a problem, only that there are no uniform enforceable standards governing access and replication.

    I've said it before and I believe it more than ever, ILP: I think you want to get beaten down here like this. I think you see this anonymous ritual of repeated humiliation as some sort of atonement. It must be a strange and troubling place, your psyche.

    Posted 1 year ago #

23. anon
    Unregistered

    I think ILP may actually be a dolphin.

    Posted 1 year ago #

24. Howdy
    Unregistered

    ILP, show me a privately controlled dataset that is used more frequently than publicly available data such as NES or COW. First, King says nothing of fraud (for the nth time). Second, King is speaking of privately controlled datasets--that while they may be large in number--are used far less than other data. At best your misconstrued quote is only applicable to a small minority of quant work.

    ILP, on Ambrose's hundreds of hours of fabricated interviews with Eisenhower: "...Ambrose is not an academic historian. I am surprised anyone would critically scrutinize his writings. Moreover, I am certain people were well aware of Ambrose's "errors", but no one cared...If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."

    Posted 1 year ago #

25. anon
    Unregistered

    Do us all a favor and perpetually read this thread over and over again. Do not post. Only read. You are doing nothing more than repeating ridiculous assertions that have been convincingly and repeatedly refuted. Re-read the thread if you have some need to experience the debate again. Quit wasting everyone's time if you are not going to offer anything new or anything that actually provides support for your position.

    Posted 1 year ago #

26. anon
    Unregistered

    no mention of fraud here as the primary motivation, or as any consideration at all. Not even the slightest hint

    If you are not smart enough to see that King is addressing the concern of fraud among quant social scientists, that's your problem. Moreover, your idea that King and journals are seeking to impose uniformity is implausible on its face. What you are suggesting is King and journals are trying to tell people how to conduct research. Again, your argument is obviously stupid.

    Nonetheless, I will point to 2 facts that decisively militates against your idea of uniformity (which again is stupid). First, would King call for enforcement of data availability rules, and would journal require such rules, for simply uniformity purposes? Of course not. Secondly, the uniformity you indicate does not require data availability. (Again, the very idea is moronic.)

    Posted 1 year ago #

27. anon
    Unregistered

    Second, King is speaking of privately controlled datasets--that while they may be large in number--are used far less than other data. At best your misconstrued quote is only applicable to a small minority of quant work.

    I agreed. This argument is both intuitive and important.

    Posted 1 year ago #

28. anon
    Unregistered

    "If you are not smart enough to see that King is addressing the concern of fraud among quant social scientists, ..."

    Is about as close as ILP will come to admitting he's wrong. Show us where King is clearly concerned about fraud, or just admit your mistake and move on. It's that simple.

    Posted 1 year ago #

29. anon
    Unregistered

    ^The only reason anyone calls for enforceable rules in science is to avert fraud.

    Posted 1 year ago #

30. anon
    Unregistered

    At best your misconstrued quote is only applicable to a small minority of quant work.

    How small?

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »