Where does it say that the initial findings were fraudulent? Oh that's right, it doesn't:
"“Whatever the result, the Opera experiment has behaved with perfect scientific integrity in opening their measurement to broad scrutiny.” "
Fraud and Quant Methods
(3611 posts) (1 voice)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Where does it say that the initial findings were fraudulent? Oh that's right, it doesn't:
"“Whatever the result, the Opera experiment has behaved with perfect scientific integrity in opening their measurement to broad scrutiny.” "
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Perfect scientific integrity..."
In stark contrast to qual scholars, who "were well aware of Ambrose's "errors", but no one cared..."
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, it's clear that in terms of scientific integrity, qual political scientists are at the bottom of the barrel.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^It doesn't get any lower than quant social scientists (e.g., Stapel).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Qually work (e.g., Ambrose) is definitely the worst. It's all fraudulent, since there is inherently no transparency, and qually fraudsters reward each other's sham research (e.g., Ambrose, Bellesiles, and countless others).
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^ also, could you at least be original in your banter? All you do is take what a quant wrote and switch a few words. I know you're a qually, so you're used to appropriating other people's ideas, but on this thread, please try to be more original.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Qually work (e.g., Ambrose) is definitely the worst. It's all fraudulent, since there is inherently no transparency
It is hard to understand how you can argue the transparency angle, since Stapel (using quant social science methods) published articles for over ten years based on completely fabricated evidence. He would have gotten away with it were it not for whistle-blowers within his own university. (If Stapel had died in a timely manner, his fraudulent "work" would still be considered good coin.)
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's right, whistle blowers found out about Stapel's fraud. On the other hand, Ambrose was allowed to publish his fraudulent qually (is there any other kind?) work unfettered. Worse, as quals have admitted, other quals knew about the fraud but refused to speak up. Talk about institutionalized fraud in qually-land!
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^ ILP, you are simply mailing your sh*t in: this is almost verbatim what you said earlier, and you were badly humiliated then. Why repeat the same repudiated nonsense?
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ to his credit, ILP used to deny that whistle blowers called Stapel out. He also doesn't lie anymore about a "police investigation" (or was it an investigation with police powers? I can't keep up with ILP's imagination and lies).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Even if we accept superior transparency of qual work, the ILP has wholly condemned its scholars by suggesting that they are fully aware of fraud in the discipline, tolerate it, and even reward it. A widespread lack of integrity amongst researchers is far worse than transparency issues.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So not only is qual work inherently non-transparent (which is a given), but qualies themselves are corrupt fraudsters who turn a blind eye even when they come across fraudulent behavior. Shameful. No wonder their "work" is increasingly irrelevant.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This quant vs qual **** reminds me of middle school.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I miss those days. I had a great time in middle school.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Terence Ball's review in Perspectives on Politics, 2004, 2(2), p. 354:
In Imagining Interest in Political Thought, "Engelmann further asserts without argument or evidence that Hobbes “had [little] use for the language of interest” (p. 19) and was “not a philosopher of interest” (p. 23), which is PATENTLY FALSE."
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ not surprising. it's a quali book with full of false claims...
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^ "I have little doubt that [that] is standard operating procedure in [quali] political science."
Posted 1 year ago # -
^I don't know why you would assert that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
well, everyone knows that qually political science "research" is fraudulent... it's inherently non transparent... and quallies don't criticize other qually fraudsters (e.g., Churchill, Bellesiles, Ambrose, and on and on...)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Terence Ball's review of Stephen Engelmann's book, Imagining Interest in Political Thought, in Perspectives on Politics, 2004, 2(2), p. 354:
"The veracity of his history is sometimes QUESTIONABLE. For example....“According to this progressive story,” Machiavelli and Hobbes were both theorists of interest; indeed, “Hobbes was Machiavelli’s more systematic successor” (p. 17). Engelmann
does not identify even a single teller of this tale, and unsurprisingly
so: It is FALSE."Posted 1 year ago # -
Why are we discussing this random book review?
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ BECAUSE IT IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF "Fraud and [Quali] Methods."
Posted 1 year ago # -
everyone knows that qually political science "research" is fraudulent... it's inherently non transparent
How could you know that qual research contains fraud? Well, because it is transparent.
Thus, yes there is fraud in qual research, just like there is in any science. And transparency protocols allow us to detect that fraud.
The problem for quant social science is that it is not transparent (e.g., Stapel), and this puts it outside of science.
Thus, it is not fraud that renders an approach unscientific, but whether or not that approach is transparent. (Hence, qual is so transparent that Ambrose's fraud could be detected years after he and his subject died.) (If Stapel had died, we never would have learned of his serial research deception.)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Qual work is by definition not transparent, so it's ripe with fraud. I've asked authors to send me full, unedited transcripts of their interviews and they refuse, claim that they were destroyed in a flood (weird how many floods seem to afflict the lives of quallies), or they say they will send them and never do.
Of course, I understand why quallies wish to hide their fraud, but it's yet another indictment of their "methods."
Posted 1 year ago # -
^Even if a qual will not send you their notes/transcript, etc. their empirical work can be independently verified.
If a quant will not send you their data (e.g., Stapel), you're **** out of luck (i.e., quant is inherently non-transparent).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Quant can be easily replicated (it's done all the time). Qual work is never replicated. It's inherently non transparent.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Thus, yes there is fraud in qual research, just like there is in any science. And transparency protocols allow us to detect that fraud.
The problem for quant social science is that it is not transparent (e.g., Stapel), and this puts it outside of science."
Really??? We're going to echo the same garbage again and again and again...
You need to read through the thread. Again.
Posted 1 year ago # -
http://msupress.msu.edu/journals/neas/pdf/01_NE_11-1_Kapteijns_1-24.pdf
Leading qualitative scholars appear to be overly sensitive to criticism...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Quant can be easily replicated (it's done all the time)
It also cannot be replicated all the time.
Posted 1 year ago #