Slashdot Mirror


1 In 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked To Commit Scientific Fraud (acsh.org)

As the saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." We know that's true because statisticians themselves just said so. From a report: A stunning report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concludes that researchers often ask statisticians to make "inappropriate requests." And by "inappropriate," the authors aren't referring to accidental requests for incorrect statistical analyses; instead, they're referring to requests for unscrupulous data manipulation or even fraud. The authors surveyed 522 consulting biostatisticians and received sufficient responses from 390. Then, they constructed a table that ranks requests by level of inappropriateness. For instance, at the very top is "falsify the statistical significance to support a desired result," which is outright fraud. At the bottom is "do not show plot because it did not show as strong an effect as you had hoped," which is only slightly naughty.

95 comments

  1. want your next grant? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    As long as there is the incentive to get the results the sponsor wants, there will be fraud.

    1. Re:want your next grant? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      You do know that scientists are expected to acknowledge their sources of funding in their publications, right?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:want your next grant? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

    3. Re: want your next grant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A wise man once said that are lies,damn lies and then there are statistics.

    4. Re: want your next grant? by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Was it the guy who wrote the fucking summary?

    5. Re:want your next grant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you do know that often they do not, right?

    6. Re:want your next grant? by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Like the sugar rush animals did. Only when you look at the detail did you discover the children were under calorie controlled diets the whole time. Here is this one lolly and a pound of celery, see no sugar rush, a complete fraudulent lie and splashed all over corporate main stream media as proof eating a pound of candy does not cause a sugar rush. Not for the sick cunts who did that test because they were paid to produce advertising statistics that would kill children because greed.

      Not to forget the calorie counters, ignoring human digestible calories versus calories a human can simply not digest but will burn in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Yeah the fuckers compared Almonds to a can of coke but carefully left out the block of wood because, yeah, you would realise the scam. This fuckers need to be charged with man slaughter.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:want your next grant? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, what???

      [...wait, let's read this again...]

      UH, WHAT???

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:want your next grant? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Keep trying, you'll get it. Made perfect sense to me.

    9. Re: want your next grant? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you read that?! OK, tell us, did it have goats, or was it safe?

    10. Re:want your next grant? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Except that you can't find a study that points to sugar rush actually being a thing. Even if what you said had actually occurred (and you have zero evidence that it did), other testing has occurred by scientists who were not funded by the candy industry.

      There is no such thing as a sugar rush. There's plenty more evidence where this came from...

      https://www.webmd.com/parentin...
      http://www.yalescientific.org/...
      https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/s...
      http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:want your next grant? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      It was likely correct back in the day. I knew a couple who did back in the 60s.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    12. Re:want your next grant? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but influencing medical professionals is a big part of the industries propaganda arm. Typically this includes manipulation of research targeted towards medical professionals: "The tobacco industry uses several vehicles to publish the findings of its sponsored research, including symposium proceedings, books, journal articles, and letters to the editor in medical journals."

    13. Re:want your next grant? by Layzej · · Score: 3

      You do know that scientists are expected to acknowledge their sources of funding in their publications, right?

      And you do know that often they do not, right?

      Here's an example of the same. Willie Soon is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry.

      The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

      But in those same papers he failed to disclose and often explicitly denied any conflict of interest or outside funding.

    14. Re: want your next grant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, empirical evidence from boots-on-the-ground parents strongly suggests that when a child consumes "too much"* sugar, they go bananas for a while and then crash. Too much depends on a variety of factors like the kind of sugar, and the kids physiology, and what time of day it is, and if they are hungry or full.

      When the behavior became predicable we (in my household) started making rules to regulate amount and timing of sugar consumption. When we break the rule (e.g. for a special occasion) we know what will happen, and it does. So we're prepared.

      In brief: sugar rush is real. Maybe your definition is different so be more precise, or add "$_ denier" to your signature.

    15. Re:want your next grant? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      As long as there is an incentive to get any result, there will be fraud. In fact you don't need any incentive at all.

      If I love the color red and the blue stuff turns out better, I will be tempted to tweak the results.

  2. Only 1 in 4? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1 in 4 biostatisticians...

    Dollars to donuts it's much worse in the soft 'sciences'. Slightly remediated by the fact they're too stupid to realize what they were asking was wrong.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Only 1 in 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That got turned up to 11 fast. You need to relax AC.

    2. Re:Only 1 in 4? by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

      In the soft sciences there are also things like: small sample sizes, ill-defined terms, and using overly complex statistical methodology to extract meaningless conclusions. And there is no remediation via stupidity: large swaths of the social sciences are just breeding grounds for career-hungry paper pushers whose motivation has nothing to do with the furthering of human knowledge.

      The good news is that there is still good research going on. We could weed out the bad if we changed the promotional model of researchers, but that won't happen easily because those at the top are there because of the current methodology.

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    3. Re:Only 1 in 4? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This study is talking about biostatisticians. Most of those guys are bound to be working for pharmaceutical companies.

      As for the social science Brian Wansink was recently stripped of his Cornell professorship when he and is lab were caught doing extensive "p-hacking". Interestingly, the research they were doing was essentially psychological in nature, but Wansink has no academic training in psychology; he has a BA in business administration, an MA in journalism and a PhD in marketing, and his lab was operated out of Cornell's business school.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re: Only 1 in 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 in 4 is like 75%

    5. Re:Only 1 in 4? by Z80a · · Score: 2

      Well the true question is, can we have the opinion of another 3 statisticians? If one in four are wrong, this one could be as well.

    6. Re:Only 1 in 4? by Bongo · · Score: 1

      In the soft sciences there are also things like: small sample sizes, ill-defined terms, and using overly complex statistical methodology to extract meaningless conclusions. And there is no remediation via stupidity: large swaths of the social sciences are just breeding grounds for career-hungry paper pushers whose motivation has nothing to do with the furthering of human knowledge.

      The good news is that there is still good research going on. We could weed out the bad if we changed the promotional model of researchers, but that won't happen easily because those at the top are there because of the current methodology.

      Science has an aura of responsibility and objectivity and truth, but as a social institution it is prone to corruption as is any other social institution, like the police, government, the churches, and big corporations, and even charities. To what degree is an open question.

      But the statement "it's science!" is a persuasion device in rhetoric, whereas the science method is to be able to check and test and verify and repeat and sure, you have to have the intellectual integrity to know if you are too uninformed to judge, but essentially, take nobody's word for it.

      Naturally there are many technologies which do work and therefore the science behind them works. There are also many fields where people can have careers without being tested for real, and they train the next generation of "peers" to do the same, and follow the same exemplars.

      So when someone makes rhetoric about "it's science!" one has to ask, which field, what methods, what experiments, what testing... etc. Too often a field is trying to study something for which there is no practical method for real testing, so all the researchers collecively drop their standards for testing and then get very defensive and close ranks when this is questioned.

    7. Re:Only 1 in 4? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Too often a field is trying to study something for which there is no practical method for real testing

      Please, I'd like to hear a couple of examples of such fields.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Only 1 in 4? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Brian Wansink was recently stripped of his Cornell professorship when he and is lab were caught doing extensive "p-hacking"

      But p-hacking is a thing in pretty much every field, and it needs to be stopped.
      https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:Only 1 in 4? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      For one, theology comes to mind.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    10. Re:Only 1 in 4? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... You can choose to believe theology, where there's zero evidence of a supreme being, or you can choose to believe science. But your claim isn't always true.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/...
      https://www.space.com/24054-ho...
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:Only 1 in 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use of "nazi" indicates AC is suffering from Socialist Delusion Syndrome - they can't relax, ever. Their dial also starts at 11 and just goes up from there.

    12. Re:Only 1 in 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on whether the statistician who came up with that number was honest and rigorously scientific.

    13. Re:Only 1 in 4? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      1 In 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked To Commit Scientific Fraud

      Actually, it was 25% +- 3% 4 times out 5.

    14. Re:Only 1 in 4? by imidan · · Score: 1

      I experienced this, in a small way. I was a consulting statistician at the university when a professor from "food sciences" came in and wanted me to "give her the p-value" for her study. I spent some time talking with her about the project that she'd done. It was incredible... tiny sample size, entirely self-selected sample, data based solely on self-evaluation, unaccounted for dependence between responses, likely acquiescence bias, no attempt at control, poorly designed survey instrument, ambiguously written hypotheses... and there was probably more wrong with it that I don't recall off the top of my head.

      I told her that maybe she could treat this project as a preliminary data collection and improve the protocols for the real thing, but she was insistent. It turns out she'd already submitted a poster to a conference and had it been accepted and she was leaving the next day and if she didn't have a p-value, then "nobody would take her seriously." I have no idea what she eventually did, but she certainly didn't get a p-value from me.

      It just happens sometimes, when you're a statistician, that people come to you and try to get you to bless their study with your magic stats wand.

  3. Not a shocker by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1 out of 4 are asked to commit fraud.
    2 our of 4 are "expected" to commit fraud without being asked.
    1 out of 4 are actually trying to get at some form of truth.

    Statistics are always biased by their sample sizes, and criteria.

    There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

    1. Re:Not a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former professional statistician that worked in academia - you're pretty accurate.
      In addition, there's the "accidental" dishonesty: "I don't like that analysis. Is there any way it come prove X instead?"

      Most academics are frauds. Most commercial professionals would like to be, if they think they can get away with it - and if it pays well enough.

    2. Re:Not a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1 in 4 ADMIT to being asked to do it. That means there is a non-insignificant number that did it and never admitted to it.

      There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
      Apparently it is more true than we know.

      Also the irony here using 1 in 4 is semi amusing!

    3. Re: Not a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are quotes, damn quotes, and a bunch of jackoffs trying to be clever by posting the most predictable quote, which was already in the fucking summary.

    4. Re:Not a shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tobacco Industry - Completely harmless and may even be good for you - even with a few real doctors on board.
      The sugar Industry - Or Diabities/Corn Syrup brigade.
      Mobile phone has harmless radiation - unless you have braces, implants and titanium antenna installed.
      Artificial sweeteners
      Toothpaste recommended by dentists
      Laundy powder - whiter than white

      The list goes on. Most statistical lying is now the ambit of politicians. Strangely voters sense BS and are voting for 'other' and Lassie.

    5. Re:Not a shocker by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      1 out of 4 are asked to commit fraud.
      2 our of 4 are "expected" to commit fraud without being asked.
      1 out of 4 are actually trying to get at some form of truth.

      Statistics are always biased by their sample sizes, and criteria.

      There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

      Unless it is LIGO, then not having Faith in the statistics is a sign of being an anti-science Luddite. :)

    6. Re:Not a shocker by religionofpeas · · Score: 0

      1 out of 4 are asked to commit fraud.

      The real number is actually 1 out of 3, but they massaged the numbers a bit.

    7. Re:Not a shocker by nasch · · Score: 1

      Statistics are always biased by their sample sizes, and criteria.

      What do you mean by this?

  4. 75% if statisticians hide fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A stunning report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concludes that statisticians usually hide the fraud perpetrated by other researchers. ;-P

  5. The scientific method by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.

    But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:The scientific method by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

      And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.

      But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.

      Even if an experiment is not repeated exactly, its results still provide a way-point that can be scrutinized in future studies. Other scientists will try to build on previous results, and if something subsequently does not make sense, they will back-trace to find the problem. This is often how science evolves.

      Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.

      In short, don't dwell on whether there is a cadre of scientists who make it their mission to repeat other scientists' experiments. That's impractical, and frankly silly. Scientific studies do get scrutinized and repeated (at least implicitly) -- just not in the narrow way you suggest.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:The scientific method by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Well, they can also hide their data and not publish it, just the "processed" results...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:The scientific method by Megol · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://retractionwatch.com/

      Notice that papers that have been used to direct research and being used as supporting data often have been detected as frauds long after the publication. That means that the falsified data have already escaped most scrutiny and have already wasted time, money and effort.

    4. Re:The scientific method by Megol · · Score: 1

      This is a good example of the problem: https://www.statnews.com/2018/...

    5. Re:The scientific method by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. But I would say that these are examples of the scientific method working as it should. Mistakes or fraud may take time to detect, but sooner or later they are corrected.

      And keep in mind that science is not the only human endeavour that has occasionally wasted time, money, and effort. Science progresses most efficiently when honest actors work together in good faith, scrutinizing each other's work but also building mutual trust. The waste from occasional bad actors is eclipsed by the benefit from the good ones.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:The scientific method by terrycarlino · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. But I would say that these are examples of the scientific method working as it should. Mistakes or fraud may take time to detect, but sooner or later they are corrected.

      And keep in mind that science is not the only human endeavour that has occasionally wasted time, money, and effort. Science progresses most efficiently when honest actors work together in good faith, scrutinizing each other's work but also building mutual trust. The waste from occasional bad actors is eclipsed by the benefit from the good ones.

      That's all very well when science is relegated to its own little corner of the universe interested only in unimportant issues like when did the universe begin or is there life on some distance planet which will be unreachable for the next big bite of eternity.

      It's quite another thing when fraudulent science is used to direct public policy which has an immediate and negative effect on people's actual lives. It is even more a problem when fraudulent science is used to precipitate cultural change that effects whole populations.

    7. Re:The scientific method by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.

      This is an extremely inefficient way of doing it, and it can take decades for the error to be corrected, even in a hard field like physics (Feynman gives the example of the oil drop experiment. It was also an example of incorrect previous studies leading newer studies astray).

      In short, not double-checking studies can lead to wrong results for decades, or longer. Think of the confusion in nutritional science.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:The scientific method by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.

      What about like with LIGO where the people using different statistical techniques get different answers, but the original researchers insist you have to use their techniques, and that it is too hard for other scientists to just have a go at the data without their careful guidance?

      Surely in that case, slashdot would be 100% behind the Scientific Certainty of Statistics because the problem is so hard that only the very very Top People are working on it, and so they must know. Because anybody as smart as we think these people are would be so embarrassed by being wrong, that they would never have any bias, or overstate something, or want to be right.

    9. Re:The scientific method by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Inefficient? Yes, but somehow the world hasn't come up with a better way yet. We can't even get decent peer review in many cases because there's simply no money/glory in reviewing other people's work. The peer review system has mostly been broken for a long time because of that simple fact.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
      https://www.wired.com/2014/12/...
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  6. Interesting book we read in college by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    "How to Lie with Statistics" lol

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  7. Underestimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My own experience as a statistician is that at least seven in four of us have produced dubious numbers.

  8. Can We Trust This Statistic? by careysub · · Score: 2

    Statistics about statistical fraud. Down the rabbit hole we go.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Can We Trust This Statistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think the statistics about misleading statistics are misleading...what are the odds?

  9. Re:Lies by reboot246 · · Score: 0

    The only kind of acceptable lies are "white lies", lies told to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. All other lies are bad and eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

    But you're free to discuss it with yourself all you want.

  10. Re:"Horn Wumpus" bragged about his "Lying Skills" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Lying is a life skill.

    Part of that skill is knowing when. Peer reviewed papers is a dumb place to lie.

    You live in clearlake dumbass.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Re:"Horn Wumpus" bragged about his "Lying Skills" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abstaining from feeding trolls is also a life skill, for what that's worth.

  12. Re:"Horn Wumpus" bragged about his "Lying Skills" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Drinkypoo is just too much fun to counter troll.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  13. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    During WW2, many people allowed Jewish refugees to hide in their homes. When Nazi guards came around and asked if there were any Jews in the building, these people directly and flatly lied to them. And it wasn't a white lie. Yet it was the morally right thing to do.

    So your statement about white lies being the only acceptable form of lie is false. Furthermore, there are times when white lies are more harmful, because someone needs to know the truth even if it will hurt their feelings.

    Lying is a complex thing. Most of the time, it is morally wrong. But it is hard to craft a simple formulation for when it is morally right.

  14. Re:"Horn Wumpus" bragged about his "Lying Skills" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lying is your panacea. Lying is your life, faggot nazi Sacramento trash. There will be consequences.

  15. 25% by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    That's 25% for all you math majors out there.

  16. 3 out of 4 by sexconker · · Score: 1

    3 out of 4 didn't have to be asked.

  17. probally 11 out of 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    marketing wonks \ business MBA's ordered them to do so.

  18. Better Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 1 out 4 statisticians admit that they're lying agenda-driven scumbags.

  19. Incentives by ahziem · · Score: 1

    Were they offered bribes?

  20. *ALL* stats are lies. They only show what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only show what the author wants you to see, period. Whether biostats guy wants to lie to us or not... if his data bogus then stats are bogus.

    No stats are even likely valid without *FULL* data being presented with nothing hidden or omitted. It is filtering process or dropping outliers, makes the stats falsehoods at best.

    Remember with stats... any data can *prove* anything by at least misdirection.

    This is same as the proof that shows 1=2.
    A=B
    A*A=B*A
    A*A-B*B=B*A-B*B
    (A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)
    A+B=B
    B+B=B
    2=1

    Or the hotel $1
    3 guys check into a room
    Room cost $30 (long ago)
    Each paid $10.
    Night Audit determined the over charged, should be $25 (honest place)
    Bellman sent up with $5 to return to them (yes still have them too)
    Guys did not have change to split... so each took $1
    They gave the bellman $2
    So, Each paid $9 for the room for $27
    and paid $2 to bellman, for a total of $29
    Where is the missing dollar?

  21. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump supporters being susch patriots and christians would have said I cannot tell a lie and handed them over.

  22. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only kind of acceptable lies are "white lies", lies told to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. All other lies are bad and eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

    But you're free to discuss it with yourself all you want.

    You RAAAAACIS'

    You're just like TRUMP

    OrangeManBad!!!!

  23. All this Horn Wuss faggot DOES is lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read his post history, 3/4 of it is anti-Hillary kvetching faggot whinery. He apparently worked in HVAC in Sacramento and changed his oil once and thinks he's an "engineer" on that basis. Pity the dull nazi faggot's wasted life.

    Sacramento is better than you, and it still sucks.

  24. Re:*ALL* stats are lies. They only show what... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

    They only show what the author wants you to see, period. Whether biostats guy wants to lie to us or not... if his data bogus then stats are bogus.

    No stats are even likely valid without *FULL* data being presented with nothing hidden or omitted. It is filtering process or dropping outliers, makes the stats falsehoods at best.

    Remember with stats... any data can *prove* anything by at least misdirection.

    A liar (scientist or not) can make a lie sound like the truth. Science does occasionally have bad actors who lie. Their lies are discovered and corrected sooner or later.

    What was your point again?

    This is same as the proof that shows 1=2.
    A=B
    A*A=B*A
    A*A-B*B=B*A-B*B
    (A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)
    A+B=B
    B+B=B
    2=1

    "The same?" Well, no. Anyone who has take high-school math (and that includes scientists) can spot the flaw in your "proof." When you divided out the (A-B) factor, you divided by zero.

    Or the hotel $1
    3 guys check into a room
    Room cost $30 (long ago)
    Each paid $10.
    Night Audit determined the over charged, should be $25 (honest place)
    Bellman sent up with $5 to return to them (yes still have them too)
    Guys did not have change to split... so each took $1
    They gave the bellman $2
    So, Each paid $9 for the room for $27
    and paid $2 to bellman, for a total of $29
    Where is the missing dollar?

    There is no missing dollar. The hotel ended up charging the 3 guys $25. They paid $27. The bellman collected a $2 arbitrage ($27 - $25 = $2.)

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  25. 1 in 4 admitted to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the other 3 just haven't admitted yet.

  26. Re: Lies by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    The only good lies are the ones that promote what I want to believe. Also known as âoethe greater goodâ.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  27. Does that mean 3/4 just won't confess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess most statisticians go pretty cheap. Anyone with numbers?

  28. I stop my University master for this by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Anyway better in IT than in stats

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  29. Re:"Horn Wumpus" bragged about his "Lying Skills" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhhh the right wing trump voting pathology shows it's face.
    "Lying is a life skill"
    Actually for most of us lying is something we try to do as little as possible. By this point in my life I almost always tell the truth.

  30. Climate science, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not surprised. Sounds a lot like the type of behavior exposed in the climategate emails. Those clowns definitely seemed to be pursuing a "desired result" and working to minimize any findings that didn't support it.

  31. 1 in 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, that is a statistic itself, and therefore, I cannot believe it.

  32. How can we trust this ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we don't even know if we can trust this article - 25 percent chance the statistician is lying and 80 percent of ./ articles are wrong.
    If we multiply those together with Pi and the result is > 1 there is a good chance some of the words are correct

  33. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only kind of acceptable lies are "white lies", lies told to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. All other lies are bad and eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

    But you're free to discuss it with yourself all you want.

    You RAAAAACIS'

    You're just like TRUMP

    OrangeManBad!!!!

    Interesting you bring up Trumps orange color, in a thread about lying, It was said Trump is the healthiest person who has ever been president but it is clear he has untreated hemochromatosis. Not healthy and that is yet another lie he has been spreading.

  34. Who did the statistics about corrupting the statis by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> 1 In 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked To Commit Scientific Fraud
    One chance in 4 that this statistic is rigged. Who did the statistics about corrupting the statisticians ?

    --
    aaaaaaa
  35. Only stats that make me right, please by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of a story an acquaintance of mine once told me. She has a Ph.D. in statistics and has put in a couple of decades with a major biotech firm. A friend of hers was doing a Ph.D. in engineering and had some data to analyze, but he wanted to make sure his conclusions were statistically sound. He asked her to check his work and let him know if he had made any big errors. I'm sure nobody will be shocked to learn that he made some basic errors that non-statisticians make all the time (I think it had something to do with multiple comparisons). Once the analysis was done properly, none of his data showed the level of statistical significance he was chasing.

    But did that stop him? No way! He went back and collected more data -- oh wait, no he didn't. He threw out the correct analysis and kept his original (incorrect) work for publication. And my acquaintance no longer does free statistical analysis as a favor to anybody because she thinks she'd be wasting her time.

  36. And then there's AGW by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Where we not only rely heavily on statistics and proxies (because real data is hard to get), we rely on models of statistics and proxies. No wonder the results are all over the map. Being skeptical is not only a good idea in this case, it really is demanded by the process.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  37. Re:Who did the statistics about corrupting the sta by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    The authors surveyed 522 consulting biostatisticians and received sufficient responses from 390

    My guess is the ones that didn't respond are guilty of doing it putting the number a lot higher than they claim.

  38. The other 3 of 4 Statisticians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually committed scientific fraud.

  39. Re:Lies by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I didn't know Spray Tan was a medical problem. Somebody should probably tell the cast of Jersey Shore.

  40. Sex,No Faul Divorce, other possible connections? by MonsterMasher · · Score: 1

    Did they specify the percent who requested they lie were women researchers,
    or raised under single mother,
    or #NoFaultDivorce'd muted fathers?

    What percent of Statisticians agreed to (so perhaps lied) & the percentage of them women,
    or raised by single mother,
    or ...

    1/3 of mothers #ParentalFraud (stat. sample of All women) to those they 'love'.
    Most would sell your&Children's soul to damnation just for the pleasure of watching them Suffer/suicide/die.
    No Vote, no legal contracts, no testimony, no place of power over others,..
    #SexSegregation

    https://medium.com/@jimpreston...
    This sample shows 30%, near 1/3 of children&men are victimized by Parental Fraud.
    Motherhood is sampling of all women's morals.
    1/3 women will actively live life-destroying (to 'loved' husbands/lovers & their children) lies,the rest lie to cover for them.

    https://twitter.com/StevWork

  41. Can we trust this statistic...? by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

    Can we truly trust this statistic...? I mean look who came up with it.

    --
    -Myke
  42. Re:"Horn Wumpus" bragged about his "Lying Skills" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lying to yourself doesn't make it not lying.

  43. Are we supposed to believe this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 1 in 4 commit fraud, which of those 4 wrote this 1 in 4 stat?!