Why I’m not posting on this topic

Posted on by

A colleague writes:

Following our recent ** article (on which you commented favourably . . .), are you maybe planning a blog post on this? Both ** and ** have extensively analysed the statistical methods used in the original article, and found them wanting.

I would really like to see the ** article retracted, as it easily meets the ** guidelines, but ** is blowing a lot of smoke around the statistics (see **) and some people seem to think there’s an actual debate to be had here. (In fact, their article already fails badly on the ** errors and the ** analysis, but ** seems to want to use the same statistical analysis methods in other articles, and may already have used them before, so it’s important to nail them down.)

My reply:

It does seem like this was pretty bad stuff. At this point I think you might have to just give up. It is my experience that these sorts of people will never admit error (it’s what I call the Chris Rock strategy). I get frustrated too but ultimately I think you just have to accept that certain wrong notions will stay around for a long time. There are still people who believe in astrology! One problem is that once people feel they’re being unfairly attacked and that they’re in a war, they feel that anything goes. It’s sad, and the only thing that calms me is the recognition that the people who engage in this sort of reaction may be enjoying the lucha, but they’re missing out on the quiet satisfactions of science. I had a colleague where I used to work, a guy who, through dishonesty or ignorance (or some combination of the two), grossly mischaracterized my work (both in factual and general terms) and then, when he was called on it, he simply refused to address the errors. This upset me a lot (indeed, it still upsets me, decades later) but, again, my consolation is that, during all those years when he was fighting battles, strategizing, meeting behind the scenes and counting the votes in committees, etc., I was left undisturbed to write books and do research. Ultimately I was the winner. And I think you’re the winner here, not just because you made your case clearly and in the published record, but because, ultimately, you’re doing science (and also criticism) while they’re chasing noise (and defending their work rather than moving forward). These particular researchers will probably go to their eventual retirement without admitting error, and that’s too bad, but what can you do? You’ve done your best.

8 thoughts on “Why I’m not posting on this topic”

  1. In the words of Max Planck:

    “It is one of the most painful experiences of my entire scientific life that I have but seldom–in fact, I may say, never–succeeded in gaining universal recognition for a new result, the truth of which I could demonstrate by a conclusive, albeit only theoretical proof. This is what happened this time, tool. All my sound arguments fell on deaf ears. It was simply impossible to be heard against the authority of men like Ostwald, Helm and Mach. I was firmly convinced that my claim of the basic difference between the transmission of heat and the sinking of a weight would eventually be proved to be right. But the annoying thing was that I was not have at all the satisfaction seeing myself vindicated. The universal acceptance of my thesis was ultimately brought about by considerations of an altogether different sort, unrelated to the arguments which I had deduced in support of it–namely, by the atomic theory, as represented by Ludwig Boltzmann. [note Boltmann took his own life in part out of the frustration over the negative reception of his work]

    …

    Boltzmann eventually triumphed in the fight against Ostwald and the adherents of Energetics, as it had been self-evident to me that he would, in view of all that I have just mentioned. The basic difference between the conduction of head and a purely mechanical process became universally recognized. This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact–a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    At that was back when scientist still make real discoveries using only a tiny fraction of the funding which corrupts things today.

    A tenured academic is every bit as immune to evidence as the average conspiracy theorist. Most people, including most readers of this blog, will never admit to themselves that the best contribution they could make to science is to retire. Every idiot academic is 100% certain they’re part of the solution and not the problem.

    Reply ↓

  4. Pingback: Weekend reads: Speed kills in publishing too; studying blank pages; apologies for the Rosetta Shirt at Retraction Watch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *