Fraudulent Data In The Ivory Tower
If you needed more reasons why you should not trust the Ivory Tower folks, add this one on top:
An Open Plea For One Single Honest Academic
We must hold the American Journal of Political Science to account
This is a short article, because this a simple request.
3 months ago I exposed Ryan Enos, a tenured professor in the Harvard department of government, as being a complete and total fraud. He fabricated data and this is one of the worst data fabrication scandals of the decade.
[…]
It is as smoking gun as you can possibly get in academia and data science. The R code is straightforward. Enos manipulated his observations to make it seem like different races are afraid of each other. This is a seminal paper in the sub-field of “racial threat theory”… and it it 100% fraudulent. Enos manipulated his observations to racebait and stoke racial tensions! Enos’ inflammatory anti-white rhetoric based on fabricated data contributes to crimes like the one perpetrated in the Seth Smith case.
It is modernity, after all. If you want to “prove” your hypothesis before you even start, you might as well just make up the entirety of the data. That way you can point to your fabricated results and say “white man bad”. Then, all of your fellow Ivory Tower idiots will pat you on the back and give you a cookie for helping solidify the narrative.
The best part of this ordeal is that the Ivory Tower was made aware of the obvious lies by Enos, but instead of owning up to it, they said they only accept investigations if the person requesting the investigation also has a PhD in the field.
No, really:
This Enos fraud case is already proven dead to rights — Enos should be fired and have his tenure stripped in shame, but the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) is refusing to investigate on the grounds that I do not have a PhD?! Therefore, I do not have grounds to submit a complaint?! They are adamant about this. They won’t accept my pleb complaint.
Does this make sense to you? Do journals normally refuse to accept ethical complaints unless the complainant has a PhD? Of course not — that would be insane! Normally, journals are even required to accept credible anonymous complaints. So this “we only accept complaints from PhD holders” line is a totally made up rule because they know if they investigate Enos, they will have no choice but to find him guilty. So they are obfuscating.
In translation: “We know he is wrong and the data is fabricated, but we don’t accept requests from peons like you”.
You see, you didn’t waste over six years of your life being indoctrinated and taught step-by-step how to do basic research functions that an undergraduate should be able to figure out, so you can’t review or provide insight on anything the Ivory Tower does. Sadly, you didn’t waste your life getting hit with massive opportunity costs, so you can’t possibly know science or research. You just have to shut up and accept the science. Even when it’s science with fabricated, fake data.
Because appeal to authority isn’t a logical fallacy anymore, apparently.
Trust the science, pleb. The intelligentsia knows best.
This is far from the first time a leftist has fabricated data:
When contact changes minds
“When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” is a fraudulent article by then-UCLA political science graduate student Michael LaCour and Columbia University political science professor Donald Green. The article was published in the academic journal Science in December 2014, and retracted in May 2015 after it emerged that the data in the study had been forged by LaCour. The article purported to demonstrate that people’s minds on the issue of gay marriage could be changed by conversations with gay canvassers, but not with straight canvassers.
[..]
The “When contact changes minds” study was discredited after a critique by David Broockman, Joshua Kalla, and Peter Aronow on May 19, 2015, titled “Irregularities in LaCour (2014)”, concluded that the data had been falsified and no data had been collected. Broockman et al. found that the survey company LaCour claimed to have used denied performing any work for LaCour and did not have an employee by the name LaCour listed as his contact with the company. In addition, LaCour had claimed that participants were paid using outside funding, but no organization could be found that had provided the amount of money required to pay thousands of people.
The “Irregularities” paper also identified the likely method by which LaCour had forged the data. The baseline survey results appeared to have been taken from an earlier dataset called the Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (CCAP), to which LaCour had access. The later sets of data appeared to have been simulated from the first using statistical methods to shift the results and by adding normally distributed noise. In addition, the paper noted that canvasser identifiers were missing from the results, making it impossible to verify whether different canvassers produced different results as the original study claimed.
And before you say these research items aren’t impactful, you should read more about the ones that have been uncovered. The culture is manipulated by these studies, only for the studies to be proven false months and years later. By then, the damage has been done and the retractions mean nothing. They get buried, and it all gets forgotten.
Just look at the far-reaching consequences of that single falsified sodomite-acceptance study:
The article has been downloaded over 111,000 times and ranks in the top 5% of all research output, as scored using Altmetrics.
The purported findings made international headlines and received wide media attention including in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Los Angeles Times, and on This American Life. The study attracted widespread attention, in part because it seemed to challenge the conventional understanding of social persuasion that people tend not to change their point of view even when presented with contrasting information.
The Yes Campaign in Ireland stated that LaCour and Green (2014) “provided a template” for campaigners to use one-to-one contact and first person accounts to reach out to more conservative voters, leading to the historic Irish referendum legalizing gay marriage on May 22, 2015.
A quick online search will yield hundreds of more examples of this type of behavior from our trusted PhD experts. Or check out my lists:
These instances should concern you in terms of sheer volume. Catching these types of errors in scientific studies is challenging because of the sheer number of studies being released and the deep-dive needed to verify each piece of every study. It also takes time—The media will report the results long before anything can be verified. It’s impossible to know how many fabricated studies, misrepresented studies, and hypothesis-seeking studies fall through the cracks.
It’s important to recognize that the intelligentsia is just another arm of the centralizer. They work together to destroy the culture. This is how the intelligentsia performs its part in the destruction of the nation-state, by subverting the institutions and spreading lies that can later be shaped into narrative. This is a perfect example of this happening in action.
So, we may not know how many research studies are outright lies. But one thing we can know. And that singular thing is that not all the experts can be trusted, as LaCour and Enos both clearly demonstrate.
Unless, of course, you believe in trusting falsified data and an institution that continues to go the extra mile to protect their own liars.
Read Next:
College: Modernity’s Re-Education Camps
Don’t Follow Your Gut – Trust The Experts
Minority Privilege In College Admissions
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
