
Cambridge University Fires a Young Scholar for 'Problematic Research' - vixen99
https://quillette.com/2019/05/02/cambridge-capitulates-to-the-mob-and-fires-a-young-scholar/
======
nabla9
Not problematic research. For racist pseudoscience published in OpenPsych
pseudojournals.

Noah Car is not an edge case.

~~~
klohto
How exactly is research backed by data racist?
[https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Carl_2016b.pdf](https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Carl_2016b.pdf)

~~~
nabla9
Before even looking at the article I must ask: is simple counterexample of
using data correctly important argument? Or should we consider the whole body
of work.

Generally speaking must look the relevance and validity of data and methods
used in each case. Even if it's correct it can be collected and used to argue
intentionally misleading way. "Using data" is not enough for science.

~~~
educationdata
You answered wrong question. klohto never asked you whether using data is
enough for science. he was asking how is this racist. Do you mean if it is not
enough for science then it must be racist?

------
IshKebab
I don't think you need to be an expert in "psychology, intelligence research
(a sub-field of psychology), and/or economics" to understand this paper. I
read it and it was easy to follow. It also has nothing to do with intelligence
research or economics.

My biggest issue with the paper is that he uses a log-log plot ("to reduce
skewness"?) and then does a linear regression on that (and we all know
everything looks correlated on a log-log plot).

Also the resulting correlation is claimed to be very strong, but I think that
psychologists so rarely see any correlation that "very strong" to them is
"there's definitely _some_ correlation!".

He shouldn't have been fired though.

