About 20 years ago, Google demonstrated to (a shocked community) that the opinions of a large population can be aggregated to achieve some form of collective intelligence. This observation transformed the world, gave us innovative products like Waze, and eventually led to the rise of the Big Data industry.
Now, we have seen how the system is hacked, infiltrated, censored, manipulated, to fit some narrative. Reflecting on 20 years of awe, I am grateful that it held out that long.
You are right. I have sinned against the order. I hereby swear off Slashdot and return to my rightful place to do real work that will actually benefit mankind.
In many scientific fields, especially mathematics (which is of course not technically a science but that's not the point here so let's not argue about that), results are often not interesting unless they are "surprising". Hence the tendency to exxegerate things.
There are also the occasions when scientists are pessimistic about certain results, and when these turned out well, they become pleasantly surprised.
So are scientists lying when they say they are surprised? No, they are indeed surprised. However, the level of surprise is low. It's a figure of speech.
For us to be alarmed, we would have to be "shocked" and "in disbelief".
The SJW crowd must be brought back to sanity -- we can't just make them go away by killing them. That's against the law.
Instead of forcing them to a corner, we have to think of strategies that will provide sufficient room to reflect upon their wrongdoings and start the healing. We also need to come up with alternative ego-boosting chores for them to channel their energy towards rather than their current divisive passtime.
It is not even that. What has been exposed is that the editors are driven by ideology, and endorse nonsensical results as long as they conform to the ideology.
I have friends from the left, right, and the libertarian side. In a civil discussion, it is easy to understand where each of us come from. Labels mean nothing any more, and everyone defines them differently. When I call myself a leftist, I refer to the position where the "political compass" website places me (next to Gandhi, that is). I don't consider a leftist is a good or bad thing - it's just what a particular website think where I belong.
You can hijack whatever name you want for your identity politics.
Except that the IRB was not originally intended for this purpose. It was put in place because in one research, test subjects were exposed to concerns of contagion. Now this is abused by the administration to ban any criticism of a fake discipline.
The data was intentionally made outrageous so that any sane person could spot them. No excuse here. In fact, one reviewer asked them to remove the stats. "When Grievance Studies say something is true, it's just true!"
Slashdot Mirror
About 20 years ago, Google demonstrated to (a shocked community) that the opinions of a large population can be aggregated to achieve some form of collective intelligence. This observation transformed the world, gave us innovative products like Waze, and eventually led to the rise of the Big Data industry.
Now, we have seen how the system is hacked, infiltrated, censored, manipulated, to fit some narrative. Reflecting on 20 years of awe, I am grateful that it held out that long.
You are right. I have sinned against the order. I hereby swear off Slashdot and return to my rightful place to do real work that will actually benefit mankind.
In many scientific fields, especially mathematics (which is of course not technically a science but that's not the point here so let's not argue about that), results are often not interesting unless they are "surprising". Hence the tendency to exxegerate things.
There are also the occasions when scientists are pessimistic about certain results, and when these turned out well, they become pleasantly surprised.
So are scientists lying when they say they are surprised? No, they are indeed surprised. However, the level of surprise is low. It's a figure of speech.
For us to be alarmed, we would have to be "shocked" and "in disbelief".
The SJW crowd must be brought back to sanity -- we can't just make them go away by killing them. That's against the law.
Instead of forcing them to a corner, we have to think of strategies that will provide sufficient room to reflect upon their wrongdoings and start the healing. We also need to come up with alternative ego-boosting chores for them to channel their energy towards rather than their current divisive passtime.
OK I am a right wing nut job. With meme magic. Feels good man.
Because their "corrupt" thought may be more reasonable than your "virtuous" thought.
Ha. Try get a paper published first, big mouth.
Wow. Now you represent the entire academia. I didn't get the memo.
Oh the humanity! Let's open up the borders so that anyone can come in... Not!
The problem is with the treatment of the refugees. Let them fix that instead of advancing some Koch Brothers agenda.
Actually, unintentional, there turned out to be control.
The control, in this case, are the journals in sociology. All of them rejected their papers.
This is in contrast to the gender studies journal, which praised their "work", and congratulated them.
Can an undercover cop go undercover?
That Haidt guy is better.
It is not even that. What has been exposed is that the editors are driven by ideology, and endorse nonsensical results as long as they conform to the ideology.
Cough Hypatia cough
Everyone is a Nazi to you. And literally Hitler.
Your world is upside down. Use reasons. It will help you.
Everyone is a racist, Nazi, and Hitler, right?
Sears vs Haidt. Watch that?
Which Nature? Nature Genetics? Nature Communication? You know not all Nature publications are equally respected right?
And why the biology bias? Math people publishes elsewhere.
You can't prove the null hypothesis. Fisher went through a great deal to prevent idiots from saying such things. Still, this happens.
Here's a tissue for those foam from your mouth.
I have friends from the left, right, and the libertarian side. In a civil discussion, it is easy to understand where each of us come from. Labels mean nothing any more, and everyone defines them differently. When I call myself a leftist, I refer to the position where the "political compass" website places me (next to Gandhi, that is). I don't consider a leftist is a good or bad thing - it's just what a particular website think where I belong.
You can hijack whatever name you want for your identity politics.
Except that the IRB was not originally intended for this purpose. It was put in place because in one research, test subjects were exposed to concerns of contagion. Now this is abused by the administration to ban any criticism of a fake discipline.
They made up completely unbelievable data, and nobody noticed! In fact, a reviewer remarked that data is not needed.
If I tell you that I ate a ton of shit, would you believe me? If the data looks fishy, you must object!
The data was intentionally made outrageous so that any sane person could spot them. No excuse here. In fact, one reviewer asked them to remove the stats. "When Grievance Studies say something is true, it's just true!"