For example, I wouldn't just "believe Enos". Neither would Karl or SU.
So, of course, we shouldn't just believe the anonymous memo, either.
It's pretty simple. Get the data and do it!
(And before you ask why *I* am not doing it, it's not my fight. I'm not RE. And I'm not one of his detractors. I'm busy doing my stuff)
April, have you read the report? It explains how to download the official data and shows that over a THOUSAND of observations were deleted or modified, for no apparent reason. It also provides the code used by the authors.
No explanation in Enos's article for any deletions (and changing official data values is simply indefensible). No code in Enos' dataverse to show how his dataset, which is VASTLY different from official data, was obtained.
At this point Enos has the burden of proof to show that those were honest errors, and the ethical obligation to retract the article. There are no two ways about it. So far he is allowing results that he is well aware are incorrect to remain in print under his name and the Harvard affiliation.
What the report demonstrates is enough to retract the article and at least the CUP chapter on Chicago. End of story, case closed.
Yes. So why not go and do it? I mean, it's in the report. So, do it. And, presumably, you get exactly the same results as in the report. And you send that to AJPS or publish on your blog or whatever.
What if I told you that the report made a mistake? Would you believe me? Why or why not? What if I told you that I re-ran the analyses using the report, and the report is totally wrong. Would you believe me?
My guess is: no! And you shouldn't! Just like you shouldn't believe the report. Do it! Or submit it for peer review. Or... so many other ways other than "here's a report. no idea who did it. no idea if their results replicate or not. But it's there. RE is therefore guilty!"
Just. Do. It.
If you're invested in this (like Karl) and don't do it, then 2 possibilities:
-you're too lazy/incompetent to do it
-you did it and it didn't work as you hoped
April, have you read the report? It explains how to download the official data and shows that over a THOUSAND of observations were deleted or modified, for no apparent reason. It also provides the code used by the authors.
No explanation in Enos's article for any deletions (and changing official data values is simply indefensible). No code in Enos' dataverse to show how his dataset, which is VASTLY different from official data, was obtained.
At this point Enos has the burden of proof to show that those were honest errors, and the ethical obligation to retract the article. There are no two ways about it. So far he is allowing results that he is well aware are incorrect to remain in print under his name and the Harvard affiliation.
What the report demonstrates is enough to retract the article and at least the CUP chapter on Chicago. End of story, case closed.
The work is done sufficiently. The code and data are public. It is up to Harvard and AJPS now.
No. No, quite clearly - according to Gelman and others, including the "AJPS Editors" - it's NOT done sufficiently. That you would say that it is makes me wonder ever more whether or not you have the first clue as to what's going on there.
Karl is the classic dilettante with a little pinch of delusional imbalance added for spice. Like every dilettante, he never actually does the work. Dismissed from graduate school after one year, dismissed from a simple government job with StatCan, told to go away by Daily Caller when they weren’t even paying him. It’s all because he doesn’t understand the difference between presenting himself as something and actually doing the work of it.
The work is done sufficiently. The code and data are public. It is up to Harvard and AJPS now.
No. No, quite clearly - according to Gelman and others, including the "AJPS Editors" - it's NOT done sufficiently. That you would say that it is makes me wonder ever more whether or not you have the first clue as to what's going on there.
Karl is the classic dilettante with a little pinch of delusional imbalance added for spice. Like every dilettante, he never actually does the work. Dismissed from graduate school after one year, dismissed from a simple government job with StatCan, told to go away by Daily Caller when they weren’t even paying him. It’s all because he doesn’t understand the difference between presenting himself as something and actually doing the work of it.
This is right. I wonder why the adults in his life don't tell him this. Like there has to be at least one older man who slaps sense into this punk.
Karl is the classic dilettante with a little pinch of delusional imbalance added for spice. Like every dilettante, he never actually does the work. Dismissed from graduate school after one year, dismissed from a simple government job with StatCan, told to go away by Daily Caller when they weren’t even paying him. It’s all because he doesn’t understand the difference between presenting himself as something and actually doing the work of it.
^ this
The work is done sufficiently. The code and data are public. It is up to Harvard and AJPS now.
No. No, quite clearly - according to Gelman and others, including the "AJPS Editors" - it's NOT done sufficiently. That you would say that it is makes me wonder ever more whether or not you have the first clue as to what's going on there.
Karl is the classic dilettante with a little pinch of delusional imbalance added for spice. Like every dilettante, he never actually does the work. Dismissed from graduate school after one year, dismissed from a simple government job with StatCan, told to go away by Daily Caller when they weren’t even paying him. It’s all because he doesn’t understand the difference between presenting himself as something and actually doing the work of it.This is right. I wonder why the adults in his life don't tell him this. Like there has to be at least one older man who slaps sense into this punk.
Karl's québécoise mom, who was/is a toonie-a-trick hoarse down on Ste. Catherine, brings ALL the NFL and NBA boys to the yard, and their lives are better than Karl's
What Karl wrote on the PPMP Discourd:
"Two days ago the “"Will Russia gain control of part of Siversk, Bakhmut, or Slovyansk by August 15th? “ market resolved NO and PPMP lost $700.
A few weeks before that, "Will Russia Conquer Luhansk by July 15th?" resolved to NO and PPMP lost $800. This particular market was the subject of controversy and a 16-page decision was written about it. I disagree with the decision to resolve this market NO based on the fact that Luhansk was conquered on August 3rd, but my opinion doesn’t mean anything.
Then lost....Losing these 9 trades in a row means that PPMP is almost totally wiped out. I feel terrible and have been beating myself up for weeks with a pit in my stomach. Sorry.
Total failure. There is no excuse other than incompetence and bad predictive ability. I can’t forecast the future, I suck at trading apparently.
What remains in the portfolio is 2533 shares spread across three remaining markets: Will Ryan Enos Have a Paper Retracted in 2022?, Will the NBER Declare a Recession in 2022?, Will Ukraine be Partitioned?
I am going to dissolve everything as soon as I can and send all the funds back to the wallets that own tokens"