Fake News Is Old News. Fake Research Is Old Too.
March 1, 2017
I read “Crossfire” on the Andrewgelman.com site. I liked the write up. I noted the introduction’s quotation from 1967. I had heard something similar from one of my college instructors in 1962. My recollection is that one of his professors told him about crazy research, fiddled experiments, and lousy math in the late 1930s. My hunch is that this declaration of “a crisis” has been pointed out since folks gathered for lectures about mathiness and rational thought.
I did highlight several passages from the write up:
- A comment about a flawed study: “The basic problem here is not the results, but the basic implausibility of the methods combined with the results.”
- On getting published in an academic journal: “Everything will get published, if you just keep submitting it to journal after journal.”
- On the state of “real” research: “The real problem is that this sort of work is standard operating practice in the field of psychology, no better and no worse (except for the faked data) than the papers on himmicanes, air rage, etc., endorsed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. As long as this stuff is taken seriously…”
There’s interest in fake news. A British newspaper staffed with “real” journalists has been banned as a source for Wikipedia. What about “real” scholars who crank out fake research? Oh, right, it takes expertise to identify some academic baloney. Who has time for academic research when watching Facebook videos is the better way to become a critical thinker. Marketing for tenure: Great idea.
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2017
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
