Pizzagate, or the curious incident of the researcher in response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers

This piece by Andrew Gelman starts off by roasting a researcher who seems to commit about every possible statistical / scientific sin. But it gets better:

I continue writing about this story because of the insight it gives into the inner workings of the famous self-correcting nature of science. The process of self correction is much more involved than people seem to realize. Sometimes people demand retractions, but as I’ve written before, I don’t see retraction as a serious solution for reform of poor research and publication practices, or as a way of cleaning the public record. The numbers just don’t add up: there are just too many hopelessly flawed papers, and retraction is done so rarely.

I am deeply interested in the social process of determining what the truth is. In both society and in science today it seems like we're having some fundamental challenges agreeing on exactly how this should work.


Want to receive more content like this in your inbox?