DavidsonCats.com

That is a lump of coal with a ribbon on it.

As I watched Pitino's press conference I was reminded of what a wise 8th grade teacher once told a classmate and myself after some transgression......."The more indignant your protestations of innocence, the guiltier you are". I believe that to be true in Pitino's case, it sure was in ours.

Phil seems determined to get fired.

That didn't take too long. http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=1-19757408

Shaka -- oops.
http://www.thewildcard.com/in-bizarre-v ... -benefits/

stan wrote:Shaka -- oops.
http://www.thewildcard.com/in-bizarre-v ... -benefits/

Some more context: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basket ... and-gifts/

Looks like the problem is not with Bamba or Shaka, but the brother, and he should play this year.

Sounds like an awkward thanksgiving meal

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1978 ... in-signing

$173M over 5 years for that guy?

stan wrote:
Read Tetlock's work. Or Future Babble written about it by a NY Times science reporter. Read John Ioannidis stuff. Most papers are flawed. The stats are bungled. p values are crap. And no one can predict the future.

Or take a look at this from a Duke Medical research team which simply published false data which served to "prove" the point they wanted to make with a large "environmental justice grant" of taxpayer money from the EPA:

http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news ... 85769.html

The corrupt research technician would have probably been scrutinized more if the data had gone against the result her physician supervisor and his patrons at the EPA wanted. Studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0017301538 resulting in contrary findings were rejected by some peer reviewed journals (PLOS One) because the EPA and Duke had established the facts ... the debate was over.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:

stan wrote:
Read Tetlock's work. Or Future Babble written about it by a NY Times science reporter. Read John Ioannidis stuff. Most papers are flawed. The stats are bungled. p values are crap. And no one can predict the future.

Or take a look at this from a Duke Medical research team which simply published false data which served to "prove" the point they wanted to make with a large "environmental justice grant" of taxpayer money from the EPA:

http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news ... 85769.html

The corrupt research technician would have probably been scrutinized more if the data had gone against the result her physician supervisor and his patrons at the EPA wanted. Studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0017301538 resulting in contrary findings were rejected by some peer reviewed journals (PLOS One) because the EPA and Duke had established the facts ... the debate was over.

Richard Feynman -- "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Rejecting papers because they disagree with prior findings is just mind-boggling. Just shows how far science has fallen.

Two short stories. 1) Friend is a doctor. After college got in MIT for doctoral work in chemistry. Was assigned to continue research for a big star in the dept. Took over the work of a student who'd gotten his PhD and moved on. My friend said he worked tirelessly repeating the experiments, but he simply couldn't find any way to replicate the results the previous guy had gotten. Those results had made the star prof real happy because they were groundbreaking. Went over and over. Drove himself nuts trying to figure out what he was doing wrong. Had several others go over his work to see if they could spot what he was missing. No help. The prof made it clear he wasn't happy with my friend. Finally, disgusted the prof gave the work to another student. Fortunately for my friend, the other student agreed with him. Turned out the previous researcher had fudged the numbers to make the star prof happy. It was all crap. And that previous researcher is still a college professor today. Nothing happened to him for his fraudulent research. No one wanted the bad publicity. Would have made MIT look bad. Just a rug sweep.

2) another friend working on a masters in environmental engineering. Thesis with his professor on her pet soapbox issue. Spent a year gathering the data. Professor already slated to speak on the expected "findings" of his paper at a big national conference. Crunched the data. Oops. Data didn't support the professor's pet theory. Big problem. Professor looked it over -- no problem. She had a big presentation scheduled. They were going to produce a paper supporting her position. She eliminated the problem by throwing out the half of the data which she didn't like. Rest of the data worked just fine. Paper was published. He wouldn't put his name on it. He didn't get his masters degree. She made her presentation. And 'science' marches on.

Generalizing from what remains a small "n" of bad apples can be risky, wrong and "bad science" of the sort assailed in this very forum. Apply the same logic to people in jobs most people admire -- volunteer firefighters, for example -- and see how generalizing feels. Does one arsonist firefighter cause us to question all? Do 50? I have no problem with questioning of scientific findings, and certainly no problem with questioning of research, which I view as evolving science rather than fully established science. I do have a problem with any implication that Science (capital S intentional) is bogus or unworthy of trust. All of us benefit every day in numerous and often unappreciated ways from science. It's also worth keeping in mind that all science isn't American science. So if we do in fact have a problem here with reliable science, then it's our problem and not inherent to science itself. For the record: I majored in a liberal art at Davidson.

Airball50 wrote:Generalizing from what remains a small "n" of bad apples can be risky, wrong and "bad science" of the sort assailed in this very forum. Apply the same logic to people in jobs most people admire -- volunteer firefighters, for example -- and see how generalizing feels. Does one arsonist firefighter cause us to question all? Do 50? I have no problem with questioning of scientific findings, and certainly no problem with questioning of research, which I view as evolving science rather than fully established science. I do have a problem with any implication that Science (capital S intentional) is bogus or unworthy of trust. All of us benefit every day in numerous and often unappreciated ways from science. It's also worth keeping in mind that all science isn't American science. So if we do in fact have a problem here with reliable science, then it's our problem and not inherent to science itself. For the record: I majored in a liberal art at Davidson.

+1. I hear this kind of thinking (generalized mistrust of science) every day in my medical practice, and I increasingly find myself having to defend legitimate science-based advice, especially regarding immunizations, against that ogre Dr. Google.

To address this conundrum, we need a real math thread in order to determine when antidotal examples of fraudulent research are sufficiently numerous so as to become statistically significant. In an analogical fashion, climate change advocates point to every blizzard, hurricane, drought and cloudy day to proclaim that the advent of "global warming" has already resulted in serious adverse impacts.

In response, climate deniers loudly dissent, saying singular weather events are just that - varying weather conditions and not proof of climate calamities.

Of course, weather is transparent, except for heavy fog, while scientific fraud is often hidden in the bowls of Duke University's cover-up. What we need, therefore, is a Special Prosecutor to investigate the fraud perpetrated by the scientists in Durham.

Limits on Stupid?

Meanwhile some powerful people are advocating prosecution of skeptics of AGW associated with think tanks and fossil fuel companies.