The backbone of criminal research on systemic racism has been proven to be fraudulent. Eric Smith, a Criminologist at Florida State, pioneered ground breaking research on the nature of systemic racism that has been sited thousands of times in scores of papers has had 6 papers retracted, all his other work is being analyzed, and has been fired after allegations by one of his co-authors that the professor faked his data. Numerous analysis of the data sets have shown that the data does not support his findings, was manually altered, and that without that manual alteration have no significant value. What's more in several of his works he cannot provide the data he claims existed, his specific responses to that have been proven to be false, and it is apparent now he invented large swathes of it entirely. Clearly this was fraud. To say that the right is going to feast on this is an understatement. But this is why you don't lie. When you are caught it destroys your credibility. In this case it means a re-evaluation of an entire generation of research, as his groundbreaking findings were pivotal in the work of an entire generation of criminologists on racial disparity. Man I'm tired of these asshole thinking they won't get caught. https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07...iminology-professor-blemished-by-retractions/
Well, the real data probably isn't going to point towards "science says kill!!! Kill!! KILLL!!! " so, good, let's let science correct itself, and racists can still go eat shit.
Yes. You're a right-winger who hates left-wingers, and your biases show this. At least FF owns who he is.
Yeah, it's inevitable. But that's why I prefer the liberals. Because 1) objective reality is supposed to mean something and 2) when we are wrong we are supposed to admit it like grown ups and work to be better. It's pretty evident just glancing at a history book that systemic racism has existed and at a sociology book that it's still influencing things today. Unfortunately now we'll have to wait while a significant chunk of the work is redone to see what actual impact it's having on racial disparity in crime beyond the raw data of crimes and incarceration. But that's what we are supposed to do. IMO it's better not to silo ourselves. You need to see valid criticism and adjust.
After reading his CV (17 pages?!) and his termination letter plus several news articles from the past 4 years I don't think the impact of his falsifying data in the papers is that much. It seems he was primarily teaching students research methodology (ha!). No, I don't have any idea what citations his work got. His termination letter is a good read: https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Final-Termination-Letter-7.13.23.pdf
One article said that per Google scholar his papers were cited in over 8,500 works. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=akY2fnAAAAAJ And yes, a 17 page CV normally indicates the individual is widely published and has done significant committee work. He's published over 100 papers as author or co-author over the last 20 years. His very first paper, cited over 500 times, was proven to be fraudulent. He received $3.5 million in grants over this time. He was also on the board of 5 criminology journals. He was a reviewer of Grant Applications for the National Institute of Justice, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Science Foundation.
Because it's not meant to. Peer review has absolutely nothing to do with data source. It can check the methodology that is applied to the data but it doesn't recreate the work en toto. There's literally a 'gentleman's agreement' on data, scholars are assumed to be acting in good faith. As usual, that fact that no one would take advantage of that should be a given was a tremendous oversight. I'm a big fan of science, clearly in the hard sciences it's very difficult to commit fraud because results have to replicable so things are caught. But even then there was a metastudy showing that ~50% of all papers couldn't be replicated. Is that simple confirmation bias, or indication of worse behavior? In the soft sciences that's even more difficult to prove if something is amiss. And there's incentives to publish. This guy made a very good living off of it. There's been a big push for significant reform, but so far it's been problematic due to entrenched interests. At least we've gotten to the standard where you have to publish who paid for your study. That was a huge issue during the economic crisis of 2007-08 as vested interests backed papers that said there was no risk to the derivative market. Iceland in particular took it in the nose because of fraudulent economists getting paid to lie.
Maybe if you're a fucking child who insists everyone belong to one side of the uniparty. Plenty of things "right wingers" and I disagree on.
Yeah, that's not a right-wing conspiracy at all.... Abortion and dope. Yeah, no righties are looser on those. Put down that sickle, you commie you.
Also religion and law-enforcement. But I'm on the "wrong" side of some pet cause, and that's all that matters.
Bullshit. Not believing in the magic spooks, but being perfectly in line with their social agenda is a difference that isn't a difference. It's kinda like how Ted Nugent pretended to be a hippie for the pussy. Against whites. Bra-fucking-vo.
Variation #542788 on "If you agree on any vague point, you co-sign everything they have ever said or done." Against anyone, assclown.
It's not a vague fucking point, liar. Says the guy who thinks it's adorable Rittenhouse was unofficially deputized.
If we're talking your soul being hollowed out, yeah, you've been absent since about 2016 or thereabouts.
