Warrior General Games

Originally posted by rams78110
People outside of academia seem to have an odd idea of how academia works. Almost the opposite idea in fact. Academia isn't some well-coordinated, single-subject, single-agenda, hush-hush collective of people. It's a set of egotistical scholars trying to make their careers with new research or by throwing shade on old research. If an idea starts gaining steam in academia, it is in spite of multiple people trying to bring it down to further their own careers, and it's because of continuing or substantial research indicating the idea to be true. There isn't some governing body that says "hey, lets push an idea that's not true, yall on board?" If the guy from Princeton got the position, an overwhelming shitstorm would blow in attempting to discredit him and shame Princeton

Which people?

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Which people?

You know.

Those people.

Those god damn assholes again?

People inside of academia seem to have an odd idea of how not academia works. Almost the opposite idea in fact. Not academia isn't some well-coordinated, single-subject, single-agenda, hush-hush collective of people.

Originally posted by rams78110
People outside of academia seem to have an odd idea of how academia works. Almost the opposite idea in fact. Academia isn't some well-coordinated, single-subject, single-agenda, hush-hush collective of people.
My experience was quite a long time ago, I admit, but given that you've apparently only been a lab assistant my experience was more substantial than your own. Regardless, no one is suggesting that academia is a "well-coordinated, single-subject, single-agenda, hush-hush collective of people." It is, however, highly ideological and partisan, particularly in the social sciences. Not only are conservatives woefully underrepresented (>10% Republican in every survey I can find), but various studies have shown that given otherwise equal candidates departments will discriminate against evangelical Christian applicants to grad school (Gartner, 1986) and conservatives for faculty positions (Inbar & Lammers, 2012). It's also no secret that pursuing socially liberal results will secure more grant funding and lead to professional advancement while doing the opposite risks ostracism and even employment.

Let me remind you that the study being discussed is one in which Michael LaCour supposedly proved that exposure to a gay person made the respondent more open to gay marriage. The claim of that being true led to him being offered a position at Princeton despite his data being entirely faked, and not faked particularly well. He was offered the position at Princeton because they liked his conclusion and obviously not due to the quality of his actual research.

speaking of liking conclusions, can we play the count-your-assumptions game now?

If I'm looking to hire someone for a science-intensive position and one of their foundational beliefs is that we were all created 6,000 years ago and humans hunted dinosaurs, I'm not going to pick that person. It's not discrimination, it's job fitness. If I'm looking to hire a football coach, I'm not going to pick the guy who believes that the forward pass isn't allowed. Doesn't mean I'm discriminating against him. Just means he's not fit for the job.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Let me remind you that the study being discussed is one in which Michael LaCour supposedly proved that exposure to a gay person made the respondent more open to gay marriage. The claim of that being true led to him being offered a position at Princeton despite his data being entirely faked, and not faked particularly well. He was offered the position at Princeton because they liked his conclusion and obviously not due to the quality of his actual research.

Again, my first statement; "If the guy from Princeton got the position, an overwhelming shitstorm would blow in attempting to discredit him and shame Princeton"

Remember the guy who faked the autism : MMR vaccine link? People looked into it, trying to discredit him, and found that he was completely full of shit. They absolutely wrecked his career and even fucked up the Lancet's reputation.

Originally posted by rams78110
If I'm looking to hire someone for a science-intensive position and one of their foundational beliefs is that we were all created 6,000 years ago and humans hunted dinosaurs, I'm not going to pick that person. It's not discrimination, it's job fitness. If I'm looking to hire a football coach, I'm not going to pick the guy who believes that the forward pass isn't allowed. Doesn't mean I'm discriminating against him. Just means he's not fit for the job.
The positions weren't in biology and plenty of evangelicals believe in evolution, but congratulations on a really pathetic excuse to avoid admitting that I proved you wrong.

Originally posted by rams78110
Again, my first statement; "If the guy from Princeton got the position, an overwhelming shitstorm would blow in attempting to discredit him and shame Princeton"
I still have no idea what you think this is supposed to mean. He did get the position only to lose it after his fraud was exposed.

Originally posted by jdbolick

I still have no idea what you think this is supposed to mean. He did get the position only to lose it after his fraud was exposed.

I had no idea he actually got it, didn't bother to look.

So basically I was exactly right. People called bullshit and got him fired. What's your point?

Double-post

Originally posted by jdbolick

The positions weren't in biology and plenty of evangelicals believe in evolution, but congratulations on a really pathetic excuse to avoid admitting that I proved you wrong.


Parable: Noun
A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles.

Nice job jumping right to insults though.

Also, where and how did you prove me wrong on anything?

Originally posted by rams78110
I had no idea he actually got it, didn't bother to look. So basically I was exactly right. People called bullshit and got him fired. What's your point?
No, you were completely wrong, but first let's highlight the fact that you just admitted that you couldn't be bothered to learn the basic facts of the situation before making multiple comments about it. Not stopping to educate yourself before running off at the mouth is one of the main reasons you so frequently embarrass yourself in this forum. As for why you were wrong, LaCour's fraud was discovered when another researcher attempted to expand on his work and found that their results didn't match up. It didn't have anything to do with him getting the position at Princeton, contrary to what you claimed would happen. Basically, stop posting before you look any more ridiculous than you already do.

Originally posted by rams78110
Also, where and how did you prove me wrong on anything?
You claimed that academia doesn't have agenda and that researchers like to attack popular ideas rather than go along with them, whereas I provided studies showing that there is a strong and persistent bias against those who do not share socially liberal beliefs and LaCour's study went largely unchallenged precisely because it advocated a popular idea. Somewhat interestingly, Diederik Stapel's far more pervasive fraud also dealt with exposure effects and priming like that faked by LaCour. Stapel told the New York Times that one of the reasons he got away with his fraud for so many years without being challenged is that he "followed from the research that had come before, that it was just this extra step that everybody was waiting for.."