I agree with others that there are some statements in this article that are 
very broad, such as the one near the end of the article in which the author 
claims that reviewers of psychological research "rarely" ask tough questions 
when they review research articles.  Where did he get that idea from?

A few nights ago the comedian Aasif Mondvi conducted a hilarious interview with 
"republican strategist" Noelle Nikpour.  In it, she criticizes science for its 
peer review process - essentially because only scientists are allowed to review 
scientific research.  It is a curious perspective on peer review and Mondvi 
makes Nikpour look, shall we say, ignorant for proposing it.  I'd be curious to 
hear what others think of this interview.  It's important to acknowledge that 
this is, after all, the comedy channel and the Daily Show, which I enjoy but 
others may not.  At any rate, here's the link to the interview:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-26-2011-lisa-randall

You'll have to sit through a 30 sec commercial.  Skip to about 5:30 seconds 
into the show.

Michael


Michael A. Britt, Ph.D.
[email protected]
http://www.ThePsychFiles.com
Twitter: mbritt





On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Helweg-Larsen, Marie wrote:

>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> It is a bit much that the NY Times article slams the entire field of 
> psychology (a field “that has only recently earned a fragile 
> respectability”!).
>  
> The article goes on to say “Researchers in psychology are certainly aware of 
> the issue. In recent years, some have mocked studies showing correlations 
> between activity on brain images and personality measures as “voodoo” 
> science, and a controversy over statistics erupted in January after The 
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology accepted a paper purporting to 
> show evidence of extrasensory perception.”
>  
> I do not think those issues have anything to do with falsification of data 
> (weird that they are even mentioned in an article about falsification) but 
> rather an expression of the normal and desired scientific process. I thought 
> the New York Times had a science writer who is familiar with the scientific 
> process.
>  
> Marie
> ****************************************************
> Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College
> Kaufman 168, Phone 717 245-1562
> Office hours: Monday 10-11:30 and Wednesday 2:00-3:30
> http://users.dickinson.edu/~helwegm/index.html
> ****************************************************
>  
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 9:43 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Stapel's faking of social psychology data
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> The story is being carried by the NY Times:
>  
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html?_r=2&hp.
>  
> An interesting line from the article:
> "Also common is a self-serving statistical sloppiness. In an analysis 
> published this year, Dr. Wicherts and Marjan Bakker, also at the University 
> of Amsterdam, searched a random sample of 281 psychology papers for 
> statistical errors. They found that about half of the papers in high-end 
> journals contained some statistical error, and that about 15 percent of all 
> papers had at least one error that changed a reported finding — almost always 
> in opposition to the authors’ hypothesis."
>  
> The above should not be all that surprising. Still, it's a little scary ...
>  
> Miguel 
>  
>  
>  
> From: "Beth Benoit" <[email protected]>
> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:32:09 PM
> Subject: [tips] Stapel's faking of social psychology data
> 
>  
>  
>  
> This story has been going on for a couple of days.  Embarrassing:
>  
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21118-psychologist-admits-faking-data-in-dozens-of-studies.html
>  
> Beth Benoit
> Granite State College
> Plymouth State University
> New Hampshire
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13482.917fac06d4daae681dabfe964ca8c74e&n=T&l=tips&o=13855
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-13855-13482.917fac06d4daae681dabfe964ca8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>  
>  
>  
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a4468797f&n=T&l=tips&o=13867
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-13867-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69&n=T&l=tips&o=13873
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-13873-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
>  
> 
>  


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13877
or send a blank email to 
leave-13877-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to