An important model posits two routes to persuasion. A peripheral route relies on superficial cues of credibility; a central route involves depth consideration of the reasons and evidence.
The Gino arguments seem to bank on readers sticking with the peripheral route.
@briannosek ELM for the win. Peripheral is usually the best way when your audience is expected to either be less knowledgeable about the subject or low in need for cognition. So we can make an educated guess as to who this website is peddling to.
I thought Gino claimed that Data Colada didn’t include all the seemingly strange data points their methods revealed and that when one considers all such data points, Data Colada’s accusation seems unsupported. That’s not superficial, logically. So unless someone clearly explains how Gino’s analysis errs, the burden of proof shifts, no?
(Ironically, I didn’t see an argument for the claim that Gino’s objections rely on peripheral and not central routes.)
@ByrdNick@briannosek to clarify: I was just elaborating on the existence of the website and Brian's point. I have not viewed the website. I find it pathetic that that it exists. It is good practice/faith to keep matters of a lawsuit on the DL until a sentence was issued or a settlement was agreed upon. It's just bad taste.
Maybe the only thing here, is that I get the sense that she's arguing the calcChain and the ordering observations separately. Data colada's argument might be that these came together...
@ByrdNick@odr_k4tana@briannosek This said, if so, she's right in pointing out they should have been more meticulous in analysing out-of-order entries and duplicates. I'm not completely convinced her calcChain defense disculpates her, but it does point to a potential confirmation bias on the part of Data Colada. Just because a manipulation explains an observation doesn't exclude that another cause.
@ByrdNick@odr_k4tana@briannosek My sense is that she raises valid arguments about the evidence. So, pretty frontal IMO. They are not insurmountable, but I feel they do put the burden of proof on her accusers.
@locha@ByrdNick@briannosek the problem about this is not her suit against Harvard or the fact she is defending herself. It doesn't even matter whether she is a fraud or not. She sued three scientists for 25 million about a conjecture. That's the move that should ban you from science forever
@odr_k4tana@ByrdNick@briannosek Good point. I don't know if it should ban you from science forever; I'm not sure I understand the suing culture of the US and what's at stake. Not suing them might have jeopardized her case against Harvard. But it's clearly detrimental to science.
Add comment