SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The authors of an much-ballyhooed 2017 paper about the spread of fake news on social media have retracted their article after finding that they’d botched their analysis.
The paper, “Limited individual attention and online virality of low-quality information,” presented an argument for why bogus facts seem to gain so much traction on sites such as Facebook. According to the researchers — — from Shanghai Institute of Technology, Indiana University and Yahoo — the key was in the sheer volume of bad information, which swamps the brain’s ability to discern the real from the merely plausible or even the downright ridiculous, competing with limited attention spans and time.
But as the retraction notice, dated January 7, 2019, indicates, the study had major flaws. It turns out that fake news does not spread as wildfire-y as the real McCoy:
The authors wish to retract this Letter as follow-up work has highlighted that two errors were committed in the analyses used to produce Figs 4d and 5.
In Fig. 4d, a software bug led to an incorrect value of the discriminative power represented by the blue bar. The correct value is τ = 0.17, as opposed to the value τ = 0.15 reported in the Letter.
[...]
Thus, the original conclusion, that the model predicts that low-quality information is just as likely to go viral as high-quality information, is not supported.
So, while it may indeed be “true” that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on, we still don’t know why.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 10 2019, @06:04PM (13 children)
It's a bit annoying that it took over a year to find two major flaws in a paper, but better a bit late than never. Problem is that gives weapons to people trying to undermine other peer-reviewed papers.
On the other hand, my own independent study shows that in the last week, SN has lost the usual delay of one to two days to get to stories I had already read elsewhere. Thanks for that, guys !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @07:29PM (11 children)
Peer review has always been a meme, just part of the pagent of senseless academic circle-jerking. Careerists playing grab-ass and jockeying for tenure makes for little progress.
The strongest catalyst for scientific and technological advancement is a major war; we're still reaping dividends off the cool shit invented in the last one (computers, jets, rockets etc.).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @08:12PM (10 children)
While there is much truth in your statement, my personal sentiment is that the ends (lots of cool tech) do not justify the means (50-85 million dead according to Wikipedia, untold suffering of a multiple of that, and widespread destruction).
Just think! If all that effort and resources had been spent anyway, without the need of additionally fucking up a whole generation and tying up another one with the aftermath, what glorious future would we be enjoying now?
Would that, perhaps, have been a good idea? What conclusions should we be drawing then, for our current actions?
So come on! Lets build a wall, bury some mines, buy some guns, drive some tanks, and airbomb some brownies! Hegemony will make everything better! *cries*
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday January 10 2019, @08:21PM (9 children)
In the current state of things, the only thing that can stop the guys who funnel most of the money into their pockets, is the fear that either the money will be worthless, or someone will ask for the money from the business end of a barrel.
So, arguably, war is a way to put some of the money into research,which would otherwise have gone straight into buying gold-lined diamond-studded alpaca cushions for a triple-redundant yacht setup.
/devilsadvocate
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @08:31PM (8 children)
Funding isn't the issue. They already have enough money, but need to stop wasting it. Even NIH admits they waste 87.5% of their $30 billion/yr budget (~$25 billion/yr):
https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday January 10 2019, @08:46PM (7 children)
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @08:50PM (6 children)
Where are you getting any kind of rebuttal from NIH? There is nothing to disagree with other than to say the problem is even worse due to misinterpreting the results that are good.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday January 10 2019, @11:06PM (5 children)
Where do you get an admission from NIH? There's nothing in the linked to say NIH admits this is a problem, all I see is an impartial display of Dr. Michael Bracken opinions and arguments. No sign of formal agreement for NIH, neither disagreement.
And the arguments are debatable. E.g. one of the points Dr. Michael Bracken is advancing is that starting a research with a small study which turns indications of positive results which a scaled-up study invalidates makes for wasted money. While it may be "true in hind-sight", can you imagine the outcry over wasted funds if they'd start with a full-blown study which turn out negative?
Research is research - the risk of obtaining negative results is way higher that the chances of success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @12:25AM (4 children)
The fact that they published it in the NIH journal with no rebuttal... His arguments are simple and irrefutable (and generous) to anyone familiar with the real life practice of medical research.
No, he says the small studies are pointless because "are more likely [up to 90 percent of the time] to have produced exaggerated results or drawn incorrect conclusions". Since the large study always needs to be done anyway in such an environment, the small study adds nothing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @01:39AM (3 children)
That's a fuck of an argument.
To simpleton minds, maybe they are irrefutable.
I mean, at least to the kind of minds which see, in the publishing an opinion as it is, an endorsement of the truth of that opinion.
Heck, yeah, let's spend big upfront, without even testing the waters. Whenever approving a project, go big!
This shirley will improve the efficiency of research funding, it will magically make the research so much more predictable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
Anyone familiar with what is going on knows he is right, that is why there is no rebuttle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:28AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:35PM
I turn off spell check for fear of spying and this is what I get...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @11:05PM
It's "social science" - IOW pull-it-out-of-your ass conjecture to collect funding, virtue signal and otherwise pander to the audience, and try to make a career founded on bullshit.