why isn't karl capable of doing the work of tying to replicate the analysis himself? Why rely on an anonymous document?
he said he'd do it. That was months ago.
What gives?
There exists sufficient information to start an investigation. There is no need for Karl or SU or anyone else to run any additional analyses. Enos owes the discipline an explanation of the irregularities in his data.
why isn't karl capable of doing the work of tying to replicate the analysis himself? Why rely on an anonymous document?
He simply doesn't have the intelligence, skills, or knowledge, to do a proper and accurate replication even though very little of each would be required.
Perhaps, even most importantly, he would risk finding out that his analysis doesn't support any of his claims that were based on the anonymous report. Karl's mental illness prevents him at all costs from admitting his mistakes or taking back his words. This would be too risky for him to do.
Do you have the the intelligence, skills, or knowledge, to do a proper and accurate replication of Enos' work? Show us your analysis that proves the claims of the report wrong. Post your R code here. We're waiting.
Do you have the the intelligence, skills, or knowledge, to do a proper and accurate replication of Enos' work? Show us your analysis that proves the claims of the report wrong. Post your R code here. We're waiting.
An adult with such skills, intelligence, and knowledge doesn't assume an outcome prior to doing that analysis. This idea of objectivity seems to completely escape you.
No actual scholar has any a priori need to "prove" anything about an anonymous report or Enos' paper one way or the other. It only matters to someone when their research becomes dependent in some ways on that publication and they find inconsistencies or issues with the methods.
And in that case, one would pose their questions in a scholarly and professional manner, in a private communication, and very likely get useful responses.
What does screeching "FRAUD! FRAUD" like an unhinged chympanzee, accomplish? Exactly the opposite. Nobody wants to get anywhere near something where they might, in the process, attract the attention of cyber-staIking Iunatics.
It's kind of like why one avoids making eye-contact with the crazy person on the bus.
Using the actual official data, with all inconvenient data points included, changes the results. So if Enos is not able to produce code that shows how to obtain his results starting from official data sources, the paper needs to be retracted.
The problem is that the journal has already validated his decision to drop cases to get stars. He doesn't need to explain it to anyone. It is very cor/rupt, but it's also pretty common.
Using the actual official data, with all inconvenient data points included, changes the results. So if Enos is not able to produce code that shows how to obtain his results starting from official data sources, the paper needs to be retracted.
The problem is that the journal has already validated his decision to drop cases to get stars. He doesn't need to explain it to anyone. It is very cor/rupt, but it's also pretty common.
No, the journal has not done that. His paper includes no theoretical justification for removing any precincts, for any reasons. His code doesn't show how his dataset was generated, and which commands were used to delete those precincts. Worse yet, there are variable values in his dataset that don't exist in official data. There's no imaginable reason for why that would be the case.
It only matters to someone when their research becomes dependent in some ways on that publication and they find inconsistencies or issues with the methods.
And in that case, one would pose their questions in a scholarly and professional manner, in a private communication, and very likely get useful responses.
Yeah, right LOL
Using the actual official data, with all inconvenient data points included, changes the results. So if Enos is not able to produce code that shows how to obtain his results starting from official data sources, the paper needs to be retracted.
The problem is that the journal has already validated his decision to drop cases to get stars. He doesn't need to explain it to anyone. It is very cor/rupt, but it's also pretty common.No, the journal has not done that.
They published it, genius. If the editors and reviewers have already decided not to hold him to a higher standard. They endorsed his p-hacking.
No, the journal has not done that. His paper includes no theoretical justification for removing any precincts, for any reasons. His code doesn't show how his dataset was generated, and which commands were used to delete those precincts. Worse yet, there are variable values in his dataset that don't exist in official data. There's no imaginable reason for why that would be the case.
That is all true, but it does not matter. Too many people have too much face to lose for this to go anywhere. The laughable AJPS editors have an vested interests in protecting Enos.
Using the actual official data, with all inconvenient data points included, changes the results. So if Enos is not able to produce code that shows how to obtain his results starting from official data sources, the paper needs to be retracted.
The problem is that the journal has already validated his decision to drop cases to get stars. He doesn't need to explain it to anyone. It is very cor/rupt, but it's also pretty common.
No, the journal has not done that.They published it, genius. If the editors and reviewers have already decided not to hold him to a higher standard. They endorsed his p-hacking.
They didn't endorse or validate anything. They had no idea he had dropped those observations for no apparent reason.
And his "research" practices are far beyond p-hacking.
It only matters to someone when their research becomes dependent in some ways on that publication and they find inconsistencies or issues with the methods.
And in that case, one would pose their questions in a scholarly and professional manner, in a private communication, and very likely get useful responses.Yeah, right LOL
It is right.
You and Karl have thus far been unable to convince a single working academic political scientist on faculty anywhere on the planet. Is that not a fact?
Instead of mocking and dismissing every valid point that is made, wouldn't it be more constructive to ask yourself why this is the case? Why have you completely and utterly failed to attract the interest of such people?
Or do you have some type of psychiatric illness that prevents you from being introspective in this way?
It only matters to someone when their research becomes dependent in some ways on that publication and they find inconsistencies or issues with the methods.
And in that case, one would pose their questions in a scholarly and professional manner, in a private communication, and very likely get useful responses.
Yeah, right LOLIt is right.
You and Karl have thus far been unable to convince a single working academic political scientist on faculty anywhere on the planet. Is that not a fact?
Instead of mocking and dismissing every valid point that is made, wouldn't it be more constructive to ask yourself why this is the case? Why have you completely and utterly failed to attract the interest of such people?
Or do you have some type of psychiatric illness that prevents you from being introspective in this way?
Nah, it ain't right, rookie. Good luck getting meaningful responses from people when asking questions about inconsistencies and issues in their research however scholarly and professionally you ask them.
Selma, You haven't made ONE single valid point to justify deletions and changed data values for no apparent reason. Go ahead and try.
And you?
How many working political scientists on faculty anywhere on the planet have you convinced with your "valid" points of there being fraud?
Zero?
Perhaps you should take a break from this and get a bit of treatment for you derangment before you blow out your cerebraI cortex.