4 ms·

> Labeling people as villains is almost always an unhelpful oversimplification of reality This is effectively denying the existence of bad actors. We can intr

> Labeling people as villains is almost always an unhelpful oversimplification of reality This is effectively denying the existence of bad actors. We can introspect into the exact motives behind bad behaviour once the paper is retracted. Until then, there is ongoing harm to public science.

smt88 8mo ago
I think they're actually just saying bad actors are inevitable, inconsistent, and hard to identify ahead of time, so it's useless to be a scold when instead you can think of how to build systems that are more resilient to bad acts
- zero_shift 8mo ago
  To which my reply would be, we can engage in the analysis after we have taken down the paper. It's still up! Maybe the answer to building a resilient system lies in why it is still up.
- mike_hearn 8mo ago
  You have to do both. Offense and defense are closely related. You can make it hard to engage in bad acts, but if there are no penalties for doing so or trying to do so, then that means there are no penalties for someone just trying over and over until they find a way around the systems. Academics that refuse to reply to people trying to replicate their work need to be instantly and publicly fired, tenure or no. This isn't going to happen, so the right thing to do is for the vast majority of practitioners to just ignore academia whilst politically campaigning for the zeroing of government research grants. The system is unsaveable.
  - michaelmrose 8mo ago
    Perhaps start by defunding any projects by institutions that insist on protecting fraudsters especially in the soft sciences. There is a lot of valuable hard science that IS real and has better standards.
    - mike_hearn 8mo ago
      But that would defund all of them. Plenty of fraud at 'top' institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford etc...
      - michaelmrose 8mo ago
        If funding depended on firing former fraudsters and incompetents they would find the will to fire them
        mike_hearn 8mo ago
        I don't think they would. They'd rather stage riots and try to unseat the government than change.
egeozcan 8mo ago
IMHO, you should deal with actual events, when not ideas, instead of people. No two people share the exact same values. For example, you assume that guy trying to cut the line is a horrible person and a megalomaniac because you've seen this like a thousand times. He really may be that, or maybe he's having an extraordinarily stressful day, or maybe he's just not integrated with the values of your society ("cutting the line is bad, no matter what") or anything else BUT none of all that really helps you think clearly. You just get angry and maybe raise your voice when you're warning him, because "you know" he won't understand otherwise. So you left your values now too because you are busy fighting a stereotype. IMHO, correct course of action is assuming good faith even with bad actions, and even with persistent bad actions, and thinking about the productive things you can do to change the outcome, or decide that you cannot do anything. You can perhaps warn the guy, and then if he ignores you, you can even go to security or pick another hill to die on. I'm not saying that I can do this myself. I fail a lot, especially when driving. It doesn't mean I'm not working on it.
- zero_shift 8mo ago
  I honestly think this would qualify as "ruinous empathy" It's fine and even good to assume good faith, extend your understanding, and listen to the reasons someone has done harm - in a context where the problem was already redressed and the wrongdoer is labelled. This is not that. This is someone publishing a false paper, deceiving multiple rounds of reviewers, manipulating evidence, knowingly and for personal gain. And they still haven't faced any consequences for it. I don't really know how to bridge the moral gap with this sort of viewpoint, honestly. It's like you're telling me to sympathise with the arsonist whilst he's still running around with gasoline
  - egeozcan 8mo ago
    I thought assuming good faith does not mean you have to sympathize. English is not my native language and probably that's not the right concept. I mean, do not put the others into any stereotype. Assume nothing? Maybe that sounds better. Just look at the hand you are dealt and objectively think what to do. If there is an arsonist, you deal with that a-hole yourself, call the police, or first try to take your loved ones to safety first? Getting mad at the arsonist doesn't help.

smt88 8mo ago

I think they're actually just saying bad actors are inevitable, inconsistent, and hard to identify ahead of time, so it's useless to be a scold when instead you can think of how to build systems that are more resilient to bad acts

zero_shift 8mo ago
To which my reply would be, we can engage in the analysis after we have taken down the paper. It's still up! Maybe the answer to building a resilient system lies in why it is still up.
mike_hearn 8mo ago
You have to do both. Offense and defense are closely related. You can make it hard to engage in bad acts, but if there are no penalties for doing so or trying to do so, then that means there are no penalties for someone just trying over and over until they find a way around the systems. Academics that refuse to reply to people trying to replicate their work need to be instantly and publicly fired, tenure or no. This isn't going to happen, so the right thing to do is for the vast majority of practitioners to just ignore academia whilst politically campaigning for the zeroing of government research grants. The system is unsaveable.
- michaelmrose 8mo ago
  Perhaps start by defunding any projects by institutions that insist on protecting fraudsters especially in the soft sciences. There is a lot of valuable hard science that IS real and has better standards.
  - mike_hearn 8mo ago
    But that would defund all of them. Plenty of fraud at 'top' institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Oxford etc...
    - michaelmrose 8mo ago
      If funding depended on firing former fraudsters and incompetents they would find the will to fire them
      - mike_hearn 8mo ago
        I don't think they would. They'd rather stage riots and try to unseat the government than change.

egeozcan 8mo ago

IMHO, you should deal with actual events, when not ideas, instead of people. No two people share the exact same values. For example, you assume that guy trying to cut the line is a horrible person and a megalomaniac because you've seen this like a thousand times. He really may be that, or maybe he's having an extraordinarily stressful day, or maybe he's just not integrated with the values of your society ("cutting the line is bad, no matter what") or anything else BUT none of all that really helps you think clearly. You just get angry and maybe raise your voice when you're warning him, because "you know" he won't understand otherwise. So you left your values now too because you are busy fighting a stereotype. IMHO, correct course of action is assuming good faith even with bad actions, and even with persistent bad actions, and thinking about the productive things you can do to change the outcome, or decide that you cannot do anything. You can perhaps warn the guy, and then if he ignores you, you can even go to security or pick another hill to die on. I'm not saying that I can do this myself. I fail a lot, especially when driving. It doesn't mean I'm not working on it.

zero_shift 8mo ago
I honestly think this would qualify as "ruinous empathy" It's fine and even good to assume good faith, extend your understanding, and listen to the reasons someone has done harm - in a context where the problem was already redressed and the wrongdoer is labelled. This is not that. This is someone publishing a false paper, deceiving multiple rounds of reviewers, manipulating evidence, knowingly and for personal gain. And they still haven't faced any consequences for it. I don't really know how to bridge the moral gap with this sort of viewpoint, honestly. It's like you're telling me to sympathise with the arsonist whilst he's still running around with gasoline
- egeozcan 8mo ago
  I thought assuming good faith does not mean you have to sympathize. English is not my native language and probably that's not the right concept. I mean, do not put the others into any stereotype. Assume nothing? Maybe that sounds better. Just look at the hand you are dealt and objectively think what to do. If there is an arsonist, you deal with that a-hole yourself, call the police, or first try to take your loved ones to safety first? Getting mad at the arsonist doesn't help.