"y'all a bunch of retardss. this thread reads like 4 morons talking past each other."
What about all the witty banter? I think you're selling us short.
Fraud and Quant Methods
(3611 posts) (1 voice)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
"What about all the witty banter? I think you're selling us short."
I agree. The rant about the agoraphobic stewardess was priceless.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The university's report was decisive. The confession was irrelevant.
Don't fool yourself, without Stapel's confession you'd be defending him.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ILP, why is Ambrose not a fraud?
Ambrose seemingly was a fraud. I don't defend him. My only point is that his fraud could be independently determined. It didn't require his confession or a university investigation to determine.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Stapel confessed because his research was already being challenged as fraudulent by his peers.
Untrue: from the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Two professors had suspicions but apparently didn’t come forward. From the report: 'The committee concludes that the six young whistle-blowers showed more courage, vigilance, and inquisitiveness than incumbent full professors.'"
My guess is the "incumbent full professors" used similar "tactics" as Stapel.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-fraud-who-fooled-almost-everyone/27917
Posted 1 year ago # -
The NYT could have written this...
"Dr. Ambrose took advantage of a system that allows researchers to operate in near secrecy and massage (fabricate) data to find what they want to find, without much fear of being challenged."
But the NYT did not write that. Why? Because it's false/untrue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Ambrose seemingly was a fraud. I don't defend him. My only point is that his fraud could be independently determined. It didn't require his confession or a university investigation to determine."
"Seemingly." Really, dude? You can't even admit Ambrose committed fraud? Let's not forget that you attempted to defend qual by arguing that it could be independently determined yet "no one cared" that he was committing fraud.
You have also claimed that we can't condemn Ambrose for fraud because, being dead, he can't defend himself and might have a legitimate explanation, i.e., Ambrose's fraud can't be independently determined and we need a confession.
ILP: "Thus, he is not given the opportunity to explain the situation. That needs to be taken into account."
ILP: "If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."
Notice how this is in contrast to your hand-selected Stapel case, in which the university independently determined he had committed fraud, after which Stapel finally confessed.
At least be consistent.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"If alive, perhaps Ambrose would have a reasonable explanation."
That is a plausible and needed point. As a rule, we should be cautious in condemning the dead.
With that said, the balance of the evidence works very strongly against Ambrose.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"'The committee concludes that the six young whistle-blowers showed more courage, vigilance, and inquisitiveness than incumbent full professors.'"
I agree that they did. It is interesting to see that you are now pasting a quote that directly refutes your earlier claims.
From the interim report: "...three young researchers had previously raised the alarm regarding datasets provided by Mr Stapel, and the risks for them were no less severe. Furthermore, two professors had previously observed data that were ‘too good to be true’."
Posted 1 year ago # -
"That is a plausible and needed point. As a rule, we should be cautious in condemning the dead.
With that said, the balance of the evidence works very strongly against Ambrose."
Once again, I guess we can't condemn the Piltdown Man as a fraud. And as someone else noted, I guess we shouldn't condemn Pol Pot. And, of course, that Hitler guy never got a chance to explain himself...
You still can't condemn Ambrose. Hilarious.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"'The committee concludes that the six young whistle-blowers showed more courage, vigilance, and inquisitiveness than incumbent full professors.'"
Why did the full professors give Stapel a free pass? It's probable they "worked" as Stapel did.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I"Why did the full professors give Stapel a free pass? It's probable they "worked" as Stapel did."
I have no way of knowing. People are lazy, lack initiative, etc. It could be as simple as that. Why did Ambrose get a free pass? I guess we must assume that other quals work as Ambrose did, to use your logic.
Stapel's career was eventually ended. Ambrose's wasn't. Your explanation: "no one cared" Ambrose was committing fraud.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have no way of knowing.
Of course you know. All social science quants cut corners, and those full professors in his department were doing no different than Stapel.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"All social science quants cut corners..."
Evidence you have presented refutes this claim.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Evidence you have presented refutes this claim.
What are you talking about?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The ILP (you?) has presented evidence in this thread refuting the claim that all quant scholars "cut corners." I invite you to re-read the thread so that you can better contribute to the discussion.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The ILP (you?) has presented evidence in this thread refuting the claim that all quant scholars "cut corners." I invite you to re-read the thread so that you can better contribute to the discussion.
Okay, you are gibbering again. I thought so, but thanks for confirming it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So gibbering = pointing out you are not familiar with your own evidence. Got it!
Posted 1 year ago # -
gibbering = pointing out you are not familiar with your own evidence.
It's gibberish because no one has any idea what evidence you are point to.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I do.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^Great!, Howdy you know what evidence you are abstrusely referring to. That doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not Howdy. One of the other guys kicking your ****.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^Howdy, the voices in your head don't count as additional people.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ILP: stones, glass houses, medication
Posted 1 year ago # -
^That's a good one. =-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
And as someone else noted, I guess we shouldn't condemn Pol Pot. And, of course, that Hitler guy never got a chance to explain himself...
You still can't condemn Ambrose
Your point is a very good one since the Ambrose case is so much like those of Hitler and Pol Pot. You're clearly and simply a brilliant quant.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is how replication and the physical sciences operates. It is nothing like quant political science, and explains why quant political science is so open to fraud (e.g., Stapel).
Posted 1 year ago # -
You take two weeks off, and that's all you have? Btw, your previous standards suggest that since the original study was not successfully replicated the original study was fraudulent, which by definition means all other studies in the field are fraudulent.
"Because that's how science works."
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..."
Posted 1 year ago # -
Btw, your previous standards suggest that since the original study was not successfully replicated the original study was fraudulent
Not necessarily, but the original researchers do have to account for their false findings, whereas no one cares about quant findings.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You clearly care. Passionately.
Posted 1 year ago #