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.
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 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.
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
Statistics about statistical fraud. Down the rabbit hole we go.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Was it the guy who wrote the fucking summary?
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.
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
Uh, what???
[...wait, let's read this again...]
UH, WHAT???
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
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.