My first “mock” draft for 2015 went up for Insiders on Wednesday night, although I’d already change a few things (e.g., the Red Sox’ pick). There’s also a new Insider minor league scouting roundup, with notes on Dylan Bundy, Luis Severino, Reynaldo Lopez, the Royals’ Cody Reed, and more. I held my regular Klawchat on Thursday.
And now, the links…
- George Howell, artisan roaster and founder of the Boston-based chain The Coffee Connection (RIP), is
opening a new cafe near Downtown Crossing. - Ozy interviews Bill and Melinda Gates about the Gates Foundation’s work for global health, answering questions on new innovations, accountability, and working with non-democratic regimes.
- The theft of rare books and/or pages cut from them is a rising problem in the rare-books world, so there’s a new effort afoot to stop them.
- A great Washington Post piece on how a fish sandwich reflects the gentrification of a black DC neighborhood.
- It hasn’t made global waves, but a young woman from a conservative part of Turkey was shot in the head for appearing on a reality singing competition. Her ex-boyfriend has been charged with the shooting.
- Relevant to my work life: A somewhat frivolous NY Times piece on fighting over seats on airplanes.
- Yet another study showing benefits of organic agriculture, this one saying it may promote biodiversity. You shouldn’t buy organic produce or meat because you think it’s more healthful for you – it’s almost certainly not – but you should buy it because it’s far better for the planet and thus for the future of our species.
- From reader Garrett, a great longread provocatively titled Why it pays to be a jerk. The argument is more nuanced, though; the conclusion is more along the lines of “be a jerk when it can help other people too.”
- The New Yorker ran a great summary/analysis of this week’s revelation that a major study on gay marriage support was a fraud. The grad student who claimed to have produced data showing that support for gay marriage could increase with just one conversation with a supporter is now accused of fabricating his results. This essay asks a number of pertinent questions, foremost among them whether confirmation bias among those who wanted to see such results made them less willing to see the signs the data might be faked.
- Alton Brown offered NPR some basic grilling tips for the weekend, including the important tip that “flame is bad.”
- The NRA fought to water down an anti-domestic violence bill in Louisiana. Because, you know, guns.
Keith,
Loved the fish sandwich article (as a DC resident and food lover). Just a quick head’s up that it’s from the Washingtonian, not the Post. Thanks for the great links!
Damn, people think they’re entitled to anything and everything nowadays, huh? There’s no way in hell I’d ever give up my assigned seat to a squatter. And that’s exactly what they are.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ll have them throw you off the plane if you won’t cede my seat to me.
And that woman who elbowed the guy in the ribs for insisting on his proper seat? I’ll just say that such aggression would not stand.
I took the weekend off so sorry for the late reply. So Kieth are you arguing that this behavior is ethical and or moral? To me, this is simply stealing. Taking something for which you never paid.
Plus that lady is a moron. She took a chance that that guy wasn’t someone like Ray Rice and clock her after the second jab.
Hello Keith,
Just one question about your last minor league scouting report. With regards to Dylan Bundy, a few years back I had read that the Orioles asked Dylan to stop throwing his cutter to focus more on his changeup. Why would they ask him to abandon his best pitch? Do they believe that the cutter leads to future arm problems? On that note, if Dylan has slightly regressed , with Matusz, Hobgod etc, is it safe to say that the Orioles need someone new to handle the development of their young arms through the minors?
Lastly, I would like to make the trip from Toronto to Buffalo to watch some AAA Baseball. What spots would you recommend in Buffalo to grab a bite before or after a ballgame?
Love your work.
A lot of people believe the cutter is hard on the elbow; I don’t know of any actual evidence in the form of research to prove or disprove that assertion.
My only Buffalo rec is the Lake Effect Diner. I’ve spent very little time in that part of the country.
As a Buffalo resident, I can confirm that Lake Effect Diner is fabulous. If you’re looking for a place to eat near Coca-Cola Field, try Pearl Street Brewery. It’s only a block or two away and the food, ambiance, and beer is great. 716 is a new restaurant/bar down by the waterfront, but if you’re going on a weekend, it’s going to be packed, so be prepared for that.
Thank You for the recommendations, Tom
“This essay asks a number of pertinent questions, foremost among them whether confirmation bias among those who wanted to see such results made them less willing to see the signs the data might be faked.”
I can assure you that confirmation bias is not the issue here (or, at least, is WAY, WAY down the list). I can speak to this in a general sense, and also specifically to this case.
Speaking generally, there are certain mechanisms built into scholarly work (footnotes, etc.) designed to keep people from cheating. There are also enormous penalties if one is caught cheating–in this case, for example, LaCour will not be awarded his Ph.D. and he has (therefore) lost the job at Princeton that he had already accepted (as well as the ones at UCLA, Stanford, Chicago, etc. he had turned down). Further, it’s time-consuming and difficult–and sometimes outright impossible–to double-check someone’s research. All of these factors lead to a general presumption of honesty (as the article notes). That presumption extends to research on all parts of the political spectrum, in nearly all cases, I promise you.
Speaking specifically, I happen to be fairly close in proximity to this situation. I know most of the people he co-authored a paper with. Further, as he is persona non grata in his home department (political science), he has been granted office space in my department, next door to me. I haven’t spoken with him, nor do I expect to, but I have discussed the matter with my colleagues. They are absolutely stunned, because he is very smart and gave off a strong impression of integrity and competence. His research was not questioned because of these things, and also because everyone knew that he actually did the hard part (the field research). The part he faked was the easy part (the computerized surveys). It never occurred to anyone that he would do the hard part and fake the easy part–that’s very foolish and very unusual. The fact that they “liked” his conclusions was simply not germane–if he had reached the opposite conclusion (that interventions do NOT heighten support for gay marriage), his work would have gotten precisely the same amount of scrutiny that it did (very little).
Very helpful comment, BC. Thanks for sharing that. I’m still flabbergasted that anyone would try this stunt; it must be a special kind of self-delusion to think you won’t get caught.
LaCour, on his own website, has said he’ll have a response by May 29. The statement he has out there now indicates he stands by his research.
“I will supply a definitive response on or before May 29, 2015. I appreciate your patience, as I gather evidence and relevant information, since I only became aware of the allegations about my work on the evening of May 19, 2015, when the not peer-reviewed comments in “Irregularities in LaCour (2014),” were posted publicly online.
I must note, however, that despite what many have printed, Science has not published a retraction of my article with Professor Green. Science Editor McNutt was provided information as to why I stand by the findings in LaCour & Green (2014). I’ve requested that if Science editor McNutt publishes Professor’s Green’s retraction request, she publish my statement with it.”
http://www.mikelacour.com/npegdsmhuut3hf4riv7k6s7msw5aq4
@addoeh: Yes, although Lacour is being somewhat disingenuous; McNutt said on Science‘s site that “Given the fact that Dr. Green has requested retraction, Science will move swiftly and take any necessary action at the earliest opportunity,” and they’ve issued a note warning readers the research is suspect.
Happy to be of service!
You’re right that it was a special kind of dumb for him to think he would not get caught. Unlike LaCour, I am not a statistician, and even I know that it is very, very hard to fake numerical data–there are telltale signs that are hard to avoid. Furthermore, he should have foreseen that someone would try to duplicate his methods. He didn’t even get away with his fraud long enough to secure his Ph.D. (which would have been awarded in just a couple of weeks). He would NEVER have gotten away with it for the seven years needed to get tenure.
Also, let me say that I do not mean to assert that there is no political bias in the scholarly research process, because obviously there is. If this study had been anti-gay marriage in some way (say, he was testing whether someone could be talked OUT of supporting gay marriage), it would likely never have been funded. All I am saying is that it’s a red herring in this particular situation.
@addoeh: I would suggest you not read too much into that. As noted above, I am not a statistician, and even I was able to read the report and understand that his results were faked. Further, I’ve talked to several people close to the situation–people who ARE statisticians–and they are 100% certain that his results were faked. LaCour’s denials are a “Hail Mary” pass of sorts–his only slim hope at muddying the waters and possibly saving his degree. If he admitted to the fraud, his work would be null and void, and he would be effectively expelled*. Digging his heels in is an act of desperation, and is a sign that either (a) He is deluded and really believes he can salvage the project, or (b) He is attempting to create leverage, in hopes that he can strike a “plea bargain” of sorts, wherein he is given his degree if he agrees not to file lawsuits, etc. Either way, he is dead wrong–he needs four signatures to get that Ph.D. and he’s NEVER going to get them. I have that directly from the horse’s mouth for two of those four.
* — I say “effectively expelled” because it is highly unusual to actually expel someone from grad school; I’ve never actually seen it or heard of it being done. If LaCour was to try to start over with a new project, he would find himself denied funding, and would be unable to get anyone to sit on his dissertation committee. This would leave him with no path to graduation, and so he’d have no real option but to drop out. This tends to be the preferred way of pushing someone out the door…
@keith and @CB I should have been more clear, I don’t believe LaCour’s work. As an IT professional, it was his statement that he “accidently deleted” his data that spoke to me most. I just find his defiance surprising given the evidence against him. The only way out for him at this point is a complete retraction of his paper.
As I type this message, I happen to be listening to Primus’s “My Name is Mud”. Rather appropriate.
Looks like he may have falsified data for another paper.
https://ricochet.com/scandal-political-science/
@addoeh: Though I was obviously not there to see it, I was given the strong impression that he was effectively ambushed by his department chair. As such, his choices may not be rational–they may be the choices one makes when one has five seconds to decide.
And in any event, he only had crappy options. I have been told unequivocally that even if he had come clean, his career in academia was over. So whatever particularly crappy option he chooses is not *terribly* surprising, in my view, since it’s only going to be slightly more/less crappy than the other crappy options.