More on the state of scholarly publications these days in What I learned from predatory publishers, an opinion piece in a special issue at the linked site.
A nice article at Discover Magazine tells some of the many ways our data are used. None of this is particularly surprising to privacy advocates, of course, but this is an interesting perspective since the author speaks from the algorithmic point of view; we of course would have wondered why we allowed data to be available for those algorithms to be used as such in the first place.
“Clicking ‘I accept’ doesn’t mean you surrender right to know how a company uses your data“. That’s the title of an article about some of the many ways companies use your data, often without your full appreciation of what you have given away.
As described in the linked article, some people are working hard to help you and fellow consumers be more informed about the effect of those disclosures. Bravo!
… and not that other stuff. That’s effectively what Facebook provided, according to “news curators” who had worked there and were interviewed for a Gizmodo article. The effect was to put a thumb on the scales of public opinion, biasing it toward promotion of liberal views and suppressing material that might have reflected conservative opinion, or so was the article’s point.
And that point would be quite plausible when you have an unchecked system that relies upon promotion of articles by people who are drawn from a pool that itself is dominated by certain views. Selection bias nuances the choice of curators, and the curators thus bias the messaging by what they choose to promote. How do they recognize a likely article? They’ll see it when they know it.
Bad science (and sometimes difficult science done poorly) happens all the time, and periodically we re-blog examples as reminders. This edition’s sampling is titled for a truism quoted in the first article about ways sham scientists plump up their own work and try to dominate in the literature: “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
In the ‘difficult science done poorly’ category we have another reminder from a nice piece in the Atlantic about challenges in reproducibility of studies.
But what’s a reminder like this without one of the old standby topics, the publication of utter drivel.
Let’s be a bit more discriminating out there when it comes to what we might believe in the literature.
… or not depending on how you use it, as we’re reminded in this article Bayes’s Theorem: What’s the Big Deal?. But then, we probably knew that already. Nevertheless, it is a nice discussion about some of the aspects of reasoning about processes using probability, and reminds us that there are real philosophical differences between Bayesian and frequentist statisticians.
Real scholars ask hard questions rather than accept lore, and they assess the quality of data in the answers. This young writer shows she is on the right track by nicely capturing objective data and clearly expressing conclusions those data support. Maybe all is not lost in today’s education systems.
Spoiler alert: the answer is “poorly”.
Government regulations continue to expand and options available to consumers corresponding diminish, as called out in the linked article. Bureaucrats make choices about what is ‘best’ for consumers but these often fly in the face of choices that rational consumers would make in their own interests; officials’ track record is one of promoting decisions which are best for them … not consumers.
Most folks don’t know just how much information the government collects on them … all of it being coordinated by Obama officials charged with documenting inequities so their administrative actions can redirect wealth and privilege as they see fit.
We link to this article today because it gives us another example of why we actually measure instead of just declare victory in a belief we’ve done something good.
Intending to reduce waste (a worthy goal itself), the University of Vermont chose to simply ban plastic water bottles. Problem solved, right?
However, a study found that students elected to drink more sugary bottled beverages, and did so at a higher rate. (Not only did the ban fail to reduce plastic waste, it also failed to help students’ waistlines.) So the trendy and politically correct move actually had the effect of subverting the ostensible goals of the policy change.
But I’m sure those who enacted the ban feel good about themselves.