Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2015

"If, in the end, the data do turn out to be fraudulent, does that say anything about social science as a whole?"

"On some level, the case would be a statistical fluke. Despite what news headlines would have you believe, outright fraud is incredibly rare; almost no one commits it, and almost no one experiences it firsthand. As a result, innocence is presumed, and the mindset is one of trust.... There�s another issue at play: the nature of belief. As I�ve written before, we are far quicker to believe things that mesh with our view of how life should be. [Columbia polisci prof Donald] Green is a firm supporter of gay marriage, and that may have made him especially pleased about the study....  But, perhaps ironically, it was enthusiasm about the study that led to its exposure. The events of the past few days were the result not of skepticism but of belief. Red flags were raised because David Broockman and Joshua Kalla liked the study and wanted to build on it...."

From "How a Gay-Marriage Study Went Wrong" by Maria Konnikova in The New Yorker.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

"The 23-year-old Australian bullshitted the entire world about having terminal brain cancer..."

"... and profited from her completely fictional story via her 'natural wellness' app, The Whole Pantry."
On her blog, she claims she cured her terminal brain cancer by avoiding gluten and sugar. Shocking, I know, but: this is not how cancer works. You know what stopped the progression of my cancer? Chemo (derived from exotic plants and fungi, for real!), surgery, drugs, and a shitload of all-natural radiation, delivered via a linear particle accelerator that is even more powerful than my beloved kale juicer....

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

"The [Justice Department] review found that F.B.I. testimony was fundamentally flawed in 257 of those cases � a stunning 96 percent of the total."

"Of those defendants, 33 received the death penalty and nine have been executed so far. Although the errors don�t necessarily mean the defendants are innocent � other evidence might have supported conviction � the F.B.I. plans to notify prosecutors and prisoners of the findings. The problem is not limited to hair analysis...."

From an op-ed in the NYT by Eric S. Lander, director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard and co-chairman of the President�s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
It is now abundantly clear that an expert�s opinion is not a reliable basis for drawing connections between evidence samples and a particular person. No expert should be permitted to testify without showing three things: a public database of patterns from many representative samples; precise and objective criteria for declaring matches; and peer-reviewed published studies that validate the methods.
Obviously, this is also an argument against the death penalty. Once a person has been put to death, it is impossible to bring him back, no matter how clear once-imperceptible errors have become. Years spent in prison are also irretrievable, but as long as the convict is alive, we can take action at the point when we are able to see that action is morally required.

Related: Here's an excellent New Yorker article, "The Price of a Life/What�s the right way to compensate someone for decades of lost freedom?"
The prosecution�s case rested heavily on Volpe�s report to the district attorney, which noted a significant piece of evidence recovered from Restivo�s van: two strands of hair found on the floor which appeared to have come from Fusco�s head....

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

"The debate over the efficacy of 12-step programs has been quietly bubbling for decades among addiction specialists."

"But it has taken on new urgency with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which requires all insurers and state Medicaid programs to pay for alcohol- and substance-abuse treatment, extending coverage to 32 million Americans who did not previously have it and providing a higher level of coverage for an additional 30 million," writes Gabrielle Glaser in The Atlantic.
Click for more �

"The government always used to say, 'We don't know the real bad effects of marijuana. We've never been able to test it.'"

"Well, I'm a walking guinea pig. I've been testing it for well over 50 years. I came in fifth on Dancing With the Stars at 76. This old stoner waltzed right by professional athletes because of the marijuana."

Said Tommy Chong. But dancing is more physical than mental. Let's check the guinea pig's mind:
Click for more �