I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry and have published several papers using R code, and have a lot of background in bio informatics. I am the CSO of a small biotech.
I will happily do this on Tues when everyone is back to the office. I would also recommend getting in touch with retraction watch
Frauds like this really need to end in a scientists disgrace. Science is 100% about trust, anyone can jumble random numbers around to get significant p values, and prove any dumbass hypothesis they pull out of the woke-beast's multitude of buttholes. Poly sci is soft enough to have fucking straight up fabrication.
Even better, I'm white, my wife is black, our children our mixed, so I even have woke cred and the can't attack me for racism.
Every time I get CV from an ivy leaguer with no real world work experience, I throw it in the garbage where it belongs. The point of school is to learn how to think, not what to think.
Wanna bet? Not that I'm discouraging you, but be realistic. The Left doesn't care about facts, and when they stand in the way of tarring someone, they'll just twist them. Count on it.
Re: woke cred.... that only matters when it's convenient to what they want to believe. When it's not.... marrying a black woman is cultural appropriation...or something. Forgive me, I don't do mental gymnastics like the left does.
Here's hoping someone steps up. My guess though is that their next dodge will be "it has to be a PhD in the discipline." Then "it has to be a PhD in the discipline who's a subject matter expert in the relevant field."
Why would you consider those criteria to be "dodges"? They seem pretty reasonable requirements to me. It seems logical that at least some active academic in political science, preferably who works in a related field, would be best equipped to critique the methods that were used in a given study.
Chris keeps asserting that he has "exposed Ryan Enos...as being a complete and total fraud." The fact is, no working academic on the planet has thus far been convinced by Chris' histrionics and ranting. That suggests none of us has found his arguments remotely convincing.
That is true. It is equally true that being in the same field does not prevent one from recognizing obvious fraud.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows there being 14,000 political scientists employed by universities and colleges in 2021. Hence, requiring someone from the field is not burdensome or unreasonable. But, it's also worth noting, that if not a single one of the 14,000 agrees with you and Karl of there being "obvious fraud", then perhaps just repeating these same claims and arguments might not be the best approach.
That. Or the 95% who are political fellow travelers are not themselves overly concerned with honesty, while the remainder are reluctant to go on the record out of terror of the reaction from the woke horde.
The person to critique this specific concern should have experience in statistical analysis and R, preferably within poli Sci, but if you've published enough and understand peer review, and make a stink to the right person, the publisher can usually be made to retract if they have a good reputation and impact factor. Hard science journals allow and even require some reviewers adjacent or outside the discipline in highly interdisciplinary fields, and nearly every dissertation defense requires a professor from a different specialty to bring a different point of view.
The real problem here is that you're a non-PhD taking down a PhD. It calls into question the value of a PhD, which I would submit is incredibly overrated in today's academic environment. It devalues everything these career academics have worked for.... therefore, they can't allow it. They need to save face and have the takedown submitted by a fellow PhD in order to preserve the prestige of the PhD class.
My guess is the only way they take the case is if the PhD who steps forward is a person of color, recently unsure of his/her sex and praised for turning away from a recent past of racially motivated violence advocacy. Then and only then will the good professor be thoroughly examined resulting of course in finding missteps in his otherwise solid research. After much editorial consultation a stern warning will be issued backed up with a prominent display of an '*' with every reference to his alleged offending work.
I am curious, why did the writers of the report submit that complaint to the journal to have the papers investigated and eventually retracted? It seems pretty open and shut to me. I think I am missing part of the story somewhere.
The writer of the report, an anonymous Harvard insider, submitted it as an internal report to Harvard administrators. They should have submitted it to the journal too, but they didn't. Harvard buried it.
I saw this posted on PSR. Who knows...maybe it will do some good to repost it here, but probably not:
"Karl, the foundation of modern conservatism is a belief in personal responsibility. If you want anyone serious to take you seriously you're simply going to have to put in the work. Screeching on your substack that someone else should do the work when all you have done so far is send some angry emails and copy and paste from psr and ejmr is frankly unbecoming. You can handle data, can't you? Get to work, show that the report is right by posting code and results anyone can easily run, and then you will be a hero. It is the only way."
There is no work to do. The current report proves the data is fabricated beyond any mathematical possibility. The code which, anyone can run, is included in the report. What more do you want from me?
I have a PhD in medicinal chemistry and have published several papers using R code, and have a lot of background in bio informatics. I am the CSO of a small biotech.
I will happily do this on Tues when everyone is back to the office. I would also recommend getting in touch with retraction watch
https://retractionwatch.com/
Frauds like this really need to end in a scientists disgrace. Science is 100% about trust, anyone can jumble random numbers around to get significant p values, and prove any dumbass hypothesis they pull out of the woke-beast's multitude of buttholes. Poly sci is soft enough to have fucking straight up fabrication.
Even better, I'm white, my wife is black, our children our mixed, so I even have woke cred and the can't attack me for racism.
Every time I get CV from an ivy leaguer with no real world work experience, I throw it in the garbage where it belongs. The point of school is to learn how to think, not what to think.
Thank you TomatoVillain
"can't attack me for racism"
Wanna bet? Not that I'm discouraging you, but be realistic. The Left doesn't care about facts, and when they stand in the way of tarring someone, they'll just twist them. Count on it.
> I even have woke cred and they can't attack me for racism.
Oh ye of little faith.
>The point of school is to learn how to think, not what to think.
They implies thinking plays any role whatsoever. More accurate to say they're instructed in what to feel.
Re: woke cred.... that only matters when it's convenient to what they want to believe. When it's not.... marrying a black woman is cultural appropriation...or something. Forgive me, I don't do mental gymnastics like the left does.
Here's hoping someone steps up. My guess though is that their next dodge will be "it has to be a PhD in the discipline." Then "it has to be a PhD in the discipline who's a subject matter expert in the relevant field."
Why would you consider those criteria to be "dodges"? They seem pretty reasonable requirements to me. It seems logical that at least some active academic in political science, preferably who works in a related field, would be best equipped to critique the methods that were used in a given study.
Chris keeps asserting that he has "exposed Ryan Enos...as being a complete and total fraud." The fact is, no working academic on the planet has thus far been convinced by Chris' histrionics and ranting. That suggests none of us has found his arguments remotely convincing.
It's a dodge because one does not have to be in the same field to recognize obvious fraud.
That is true. It is equally true that being in the same field does not prevent one from recognizing obvious fraud.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows there being 14,000 political scientists employed by universities and colleges in 2021. Hence, requiring someone from the field is not burdensome or unreasonable. But, it's also worth noting, that if not a single one of the 14,000 agrees with you and Karl of there being "obvious fraud", then perhaps just repeating these same claims and arguments might not be the best approach.
That. Or the 95% who are political fellow travelers are not themselves overly concerned with honesty, while the remainder are reluctant to go on the record out of terror of the reaction from the woke horde.
The person to critique this specific concern should have experience in statistical analysis and R, preferably within poli Sci, but if you've published enough and understand peer review, and make a stink to the right person, the publisher can usually be made to retract if they have a good reputation and impact factor. Hard science journals allow and even require some reviewers adjacent or outside the discipline in highly interdisciplinary fields, and nearly every dissertation defense requires a professor from a different specialty to bring a different point of view.
At least that's how it's supposed to work lol
The real problem here is that you're a non-PhD taking down a PhD. It calls into question the value of a PhD, which I would submit is incredibly overrated in today's academic environment. It devalues everything these career academics have worked for.... therefore, they can't allow it. They need to save face and have the takedown submitted by a fellow PhD in order to preserve the prestige of the PhD class.
I have a PhD. It makes nice round holes in the ground.
My guess is the only way they take the case is if the PhD who steps forward is a person of color, recently unsure of his/her sex and praised for turning away from a recent past of racially motivated violence advocacy. Then and only then will the good professor be thoroughly examined resulting of course in finding missteps in his otherwise solid research. After much editorial consultation a stern warning will be issued backed up with a prominent display of an '*' with every reference to his alleged offending work.
Science and academia being abused to support political agendas? Noooooo! Say it ain't so!
So a PhD in Art History can file a complaint about the work product of a PhD in Quantum Physics? Got it.
I am curious, why did the writers of the report submit that complaint to the journal to have the papers investigated and eventually retracted? It seems pretty open and shut to me. I think I am missing part of the story somewhere.
The writer of the report, an anonymous Harvard insider, submitted it as an internal report to Harvard administrators. They should have submitted it to the journal too, but they didn't. Harvard buried it.
I saw this posted on PSR. Who knows...maybe it will do some good to repost it here, but probably not:
"Karl, the foundation of modern conservatism is a belief in personal responsibility. If you want anyone serious to take you seriously you're simply going to have to put in the work. Screeching on your substack that someone else should do the work when all you have done so far is send some angry emails and copy and paste from psr and ejmr is frankly unbecoming. You can handle data, can't you? Get to work, show that the report is right by posting code and results anyone can easily run, and then you will be a hero. It is the only way."
There is no work to do. The current report proves the data is fabricated beyond any mathematical possibility. The code which, anyone can run, is included in the report. What more do you want from me?
Nothing in this world makes more sense than “white flight.” It’s utterly rational.