24 ms·

My first instinct when hearing of accusations of academic misconduct is to ask who is making those accusations: is it someone whose opinions I can trust? The a

My first instinct when hearing of accusations of academic misconduct is to ask who is making those accusations: is it someone whose opinions I can trust? The author of the blog above has an About page where they introduce themselves as "a researcher with a background in Economics, Mathematics, and Cognitive Science". Instead of a list of academic achievements: publications, grants, chairs, awards, etc, as we would expect to see in a researcher's "about" page, the author continues their introduction with a few words on what they're "thinking about" at the moment and what their long-term goals are, then makes a peculiar plea: If you’re reading this and you do anything biology-related at all, I would love to talk to you and would especially appreciate you getting in touch. Then the author lists their favourite TV shows, personal essays, interviews etc. All this does not make the author of the article sound like a trustworthy source, but rather as someone desperate for attention. The next thing I usually look for in cases like this is whether the person accusing someone else of academic fraud has given an opportunity to the party they accuse to defend themselves. The author of this blog has not only not done that but is engaging in misleading tactics. The following text is in TFA: Also see UC Berkeley’s official response regarding this essay – all problems with the book I discovered are “minor”. The sentence "UC Berkeley’s official response" links to the following URL: https://yngve.hoiseth.net/articles/why-we-sleep-institutional-failure/ https://yngve.hoiseth.net/articles/why-we-sleep-institutiona... However, the linked resource is not "UC Berkeley's official response" at all, but rather a blog by a different blogger, Yngve Hoiseth, who claims they contacted someone -who is never named- at UC Berkeley about Alexey Guzey's post we are reading above. Yngve Hoiseth's blog itself claims to have uploaded "the entire exchange here", linking to the following URL: https://yngve.hoiseth.net/why-we-sleep-institutional-failure/email-exchange.eml https://yngve.hoiseth.net/why-we-sleep-institutional-failure... Which is dead and has not been archived by archive.org. All this makes the article above sound very difficult to take seriously. In all honesty, it sounds entirely like an attempt to kick shit up for the author's personal gratification. Or perhaps there is some strange ???-PROFIT scheme hidden somewhere in there, but even that is not particularlly interesting. Posting under a throwaway because the article's author sounds desperate enough to engage in all sorts of internet attacks to deter critics.

karaterobot 5y ago
> My first instinct when hearing of accusations of academic misconduct is to ask who is making those accusations: is it someone whose opinions I can trust? What does it matter who is making the accusations if they are verifiable?
- a_throwaway_6 5y ago
  It matters because I don't have the knowledge to verify the accusations and the fact that the person that makes accusations of academic fraud is misrepresenting himself as a "researcher" means that they are not a trustworthy source of academic criticism.
  - hntrader 5y ago
    But you do have the knowledge to verify some of the accusations, because much of them don't require any knowledge to verify. He's often just pointing out logical internal contradictions in the text (point 2) or lies/mistakes about what the author claimed a source said when in fact the source said no such thing (point 4 about WHO and point 5 about NSF). Also, I don't agree that he's misrepresenting himself. He didn't claim that he had an academic appointment. He claimed that he's a researcher, of which professional academics are a strict subset. After reading his excellent article, I'm in agreement with him that this is a suitable label. Your other criticisms of his About page are just odd. So what if he puts his hobbies on there, or is reaching out to biology people? That's normal for an About page.
    - a_throwaway_6 5y ago
      Unfortunately, I have no way to tell what is a "logical internal contradiction in the text", because I am not knowledgeable in the subject matter of the text and so cannot follow its internal logic. I disagree that a "researcher" is a loose label that anyone can assign to themselves without qualifications. For example, a reiki healer could claim themselves to be a "researcher" but this would be misleading. Writing an article arguing that an author of a book has perpetrated academic fraud is evidence against any claim of careful research. Claming academic fraud is really the nuclear option. The first thing to do when one finds fault with someone else's work is to contact the other person and ask for clarification. If things get to the point where one feels the only way forward is to "go public" with an exposition of the other person's work faults, then one should include the other person's explanations or reactions, if any were given, or details of the attempts made to contact that other person. As I say above, this was not done to any reasonable degree and the only attempt at anything like it is misleading and links to an email conversation claimed to be an "official response" by UC Berkeley (rather than the book's author) but that is impossible to verify. The overall impression is of a one-sided argument, lack of transparency, attempts at deception and misrepresentation and overall disreputable and underhanded tactics. Such actions by the article author do not suggest they are a "researcher" of any repute, except maybe in their imagination.

karaterobot 5y ago

> My first instinct when hearing of accusations of academic misconduct is to ask who is making those accusations: is it someone whose opinions I can trust? What does it matter who is making the accusations if they are verifiable?

a_throwaway_6 5y ago
It matters because I don't have the knowledge to verify the accusations and the fact that the person that makes accusations of academic fraud is misrepresenting himself as a "researcher" means that they are not a trustworthy source of academic criticism.
- hntrader 5y ago
  But you do have the knowledge to verify some of the accusations, because much of them don't require any knowledge to verify. He's often just pointing out logical internal contradictions in the text (point 2) or lies/mistakes about what the author claimed a source said when in fact the source said no such thing (point 4 about WHO and point 5 about NSF). Also, I don't agree that he's misrepresenting himself. He didn't claim that he had an academic appointment. He claimed that he's a researcher, of which professional academics are a strict subset. After reading his excellent article, I'm in agreement with him that this is a suitable label. Your other criticisms of his About page are just odd. So what if he puts his hobbies on there, or is reaching out to biology people? That's normal for an About page.
  - a_throwaway_6 5y ago
    Unfortunately, I have no way to tell what is a "logical internal contradiction in the text", because I am not knowledgeable in the subject matter of the text and so cannot follow its internal logic. I disagree that a "researcher" is a loose label that anyone can assign to themselves without qualifications. For example, a reiki healer could claim themselves to be a "researcher" but this would be misleading. Writing an article arguing that an author of a book has perpetrated academic fraud is evidence against any claim of careful research. Claming academic fraud is really the nuclear option. The first thing to do when one finds fault with someone else's work is to contact the other person and ask for clarification. If things get to the point where one feels the only way forward is to "go public" with an exposition of the other person's work faults, then one should include the other person's explanations or reactions, if any were given, or details of the attempts made to contact that other person. As I say above, this was not done to any reasonable degree and the only attempt at anything like it is misleading and links to an email conversation claimed to be an "official response" by UC Berkeley (rather than the book's author) but that is impossible to verify. The overall impression is of a one-sided argument, lack of transparency, attempts at deception and misrepresentation and overall disreputable and underhanded tactics. Such actions by the article author do not suggest they are a "researcher" of any repute, except maybe in their imagination.