Top
Best
New

Posted by qsi 5 hours ago

False claims in a widely-cited paper(statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu)
181 points | 60 commentspage 2
ChrisArchitect 3 hours ago|
cleaned up url: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/03/24/false-clai...

(if not trying to highlight that particular comment on it)

internetter 2 hours ago|
dang could you change the link
stinkbeetle 3 hours ago|
[flagged]
jasonfarnon 3 hours ago||
When was this golden age of western civilization again? like 10 years ago, are you suggesting we were in this golden age? I mean, the paper this link is discussing is from 2014, so I guess it was more like 15 years ago that the golden age sunsetted?
throwawaypath 2 hours ago|||
>When was this golden age of western civilization again?

If there was a time, it surely wasn't the time of pregnant men, math is racist, and acronyms are White supremacy culture.

stinkbeetle 3 hours ago|||
What do you mean when was it again? I don't understand your questions or how they relate to what I wrote.
aloha2436 3 hours ago|||
They are insinuating that the consensus you're talking about never existed as you have described it.
jasonfarnon 3 hours ago|||
If anything, I think the Internet has made it easier to expose bad science. People like Andrew Gellman and websites like pubpeer have had a huge impact on the practice of the social sciences (psychology especially) just using blogs. In the past he would have been ignored. Journals and authors do their best to ignore, dismiss, and discredit him now. Having a direct voice to the public is what saves him.
esseph 3 hours ago||
Nobody is looking at that, they're watching TikTok and ReelShorts
stinkbeetle 3 hours ago|||
That would be strange and misguided because I didn't talk about a consensus, I was talking about a mechanism for consensus. And consensus has existed many times on many issues now, and then.
hunter-gatherer 3 hours ago||
Right, the mechanism you mentioned, reason, never existed. That's how I read their comment anyways.
jasonfarnon 2 hours ago|||
Sorry for being flippant. My analysis is that the mix of reason or emotions is unchanged over time. Take the case of this management science paper. What is irrational about defending a bad paper you wrote when it brings you all the accolades and benefits Andrew has described? The authors' personal goals aren't aligned with the public's goals of getting good science. That's not a failure of reason. Maybe it's selfish. That's different.
andrewjf 3 hours ago|||
That's really root cause in everything, isn't it?

- The consolidation of media (& social media in general) is about making money from outrage (emotions)

- Anti Vax (& other) movements is about people only receptive to people saying what they already feel (feelings)

- Accountability is gone because people care about being on the winning team and being "right".

Reason, Logic, and Evidence seems completely replaced by propaganda and mistrust of experts (fueled by the propaganda), but it's all rooted in comfort in people's own emotional validation.

lotsofpulp 3 hours ago||
>The consolidation of media (& social media in general) is about making money from outrage (emotions)

I think it is the exact opposite. Now that anyone in the world can create and share "media", professionals trying to make high brow media cannot compete with the emotional reaction slop that the other 8 billion people put out.

Look at what is popular on Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, TikTok, and now even the federal US government targets the same lowest common denominator. Even Fox News and ESPN cannot compete.

The supply of media sellers is the most unconsolidated it has ever been, with millions of random people recording their own faux outrage and uploading it daily for others to mindlessly consume.

andrewjf 3 hours ago||
Fair point! Makes complete sense.

But I wouldn't exactly call "professionals trying to make high brow media" exclusive alternative to Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, TikTok.

A lot of the propaganda (and sane washing) is coming from mass media, too. I feel like the only "legit" media outlets are like Reuters, AP, and some international ones, I guess.

YZF 3 hours ago|||
Post-truth ... and it's gonna get worse.
Andrex 3 hours ago|||
Biases will always be endemic to any human system.
ginkgotree 3 hours ago|||
Excellent summary, as unfortunate as it is.
tombert 3 hours ago|||
Oh that's not new.

I remember when I was a teenager there were lawsuits about trying to teach creationism in school. My entire life conservatives have been arguing against climate change.

stinkbeetle 3 hours ago||
> Oh that's not new.

It's not that outrage or unfounded opinions were new, or the masses were never fooled or taken advantage of before. It's that the mechanism for social consensus is rapidly shifting.

> I remember when I was a teenager there were lawsuits about trying to teach creationism in school. My entire life conservatives have been arguing against climate change.

And yet the consensus about climate change and in particular support for policies that address it is very strong.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...

60-70% is far far higher than most politicians win elections by. They'll call 5low-something% a landslide. They push policies and laws that are far less popular than that, claiming popular mandate.

And yet there are a bunch of people fixated on the idea that it is a disadvantaged (poorer, less educated) minority of average citizens of the country who are orchestrating some evil battle against it. Rather than seeing the obvious that the ruling class is as always pushing divide and conquer techniques, shifting blame, and turning people on one another. A good example of the emotional mechanism of social consensus.

TheDong 2 hours ago|||
60-70% for a politician or political position is high. For believing in reality it's low.

If you asked "Do cigarettes contribute to lung cancer", you'd expect 95%+. Our evidence for climate change is on-par with that, and yet the rich have run a wildly successful campaign to cast doubt on it for years.

If people really appreciated the gravity of it, we would not have trump, a demonstrably anti-climate president who has rolled back green policies and slowed decarbonization, and even ran on it. Apparently spiting the "other side" is more important than our planet's long term habitability.

tombert 2 hours ago|||
We used to burn women to death because they were accused of being witches. I don't think this was because there was a lot of reason and evidence when they were doing this.

I don't think it's unique to the people of today that people in groups do dumb emotional shit. That's kind of the point of Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger".