Unbelievable: The tenured academic’s response to faked gay marriage opinion study
|May 23, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
Noted by Barry Arrington here.
Whitewash duly reported in the New Yorker is
In retrospect, Green wishes he had asked for the raw data earlier. And yet, in collaborations in which data is collected at only one institution, it’s not uncommon for the collecting site to anonymize and code it before sharing it. The anonymized data Green did see looked plausible and convincing. “He analyzed it, I analyzed it—I have the most ornate set of graphs and charts and every possible detail analyzed five different ways,” Green said. Ultimately, though, the system takes for granted that no one would be so brazen as to create the actual raw data themselves.
The author burbles on, as expected, about the nature of “belief” …
So the prof didn’t ask to see the raw data … ?
Well, excuse US creationist hillbillies but
1) If I were buying a house, the first thing I would want after the initial [in principle] agreement is a title search. = In principle, I’ll buy the house on a mutually agreed date if the law agrees you own it and I agree to your conditions stated on that date.
2. If I were buying a used car, I would get it checked out by a Class A licensed mechanic before I forwarded any serious money to a dealer.
Yet I’m supposed to believe that a tenured professor of political science at Columbia University is no way as smart as a dumb hack like me in the most basic ways imaginable? The stuff that keeps most of us in funds?
Don’t we all need a conversation about why people are going into debt to pay for education from these kinds of people, and paying taxes for it, and pledging money for it?
And why isn’t that conversation happening yet?
Follow UD News at Twitter!