Econstudentlog

The word ‘probably’ is ‘probably’ not necessary…

Link. A few others to add to the list:

“The title of our paper changed three times because it was impossible to massage the data enough to prove what we set out to prove initially.”

“Our results are actually completely bogus under settings (X, Y and Z), all of which applies to the real world, but we know that pretty much no one who’ll read a paper like this actually cares anyway.” (one word: Macroeconomics)

Along the same lines: “This paper actually has no real-world applications…”

“I primarily wrote this paper in order to make my mother proud.”

“In five years, the results of this study will be completely (obsolete/useless/disproven).”

“We deliberately omitted the significant variables (X, Y and Z) from our model in order to be able to publish at least a dozen follow-up studies along the way.”

“We are very glad and grateful that (supposedly prestigious journal X) was willing to publish our results as we tried to publish them a lot of other places first without luck…”

“We consider this paper a great contribution to (relevant theory X), even though we know perfectly well that most sane people out there would rather get hit by a bus than being forced to read this crap.”

“I would never have sent this paper to publication if the paper’s conclusions regarding the importance of career path dependence in the labor market were incorrect…”

“Our models’ main problems are primarily a result of an effect closely related to our main finding that most editors are grossly underpaid, namely that it would be a lot easier to get a paper published by bribing the editor than it would be to do it by actually writing a decent paper.”

May 6, 2010 Posted by | academia, comics | Leave a comment

British libel law fact of the day

Yes, I know I just posted a post on the same subject in Danish, but I thought this deserved a post of its own. It’s your fault too: Unless a given post is nothing but a collection of links (like my wikipedia posts), the likelihood that someone – no wait, anyone – will follow more than one link in any given post (almost always, but not quite always, the first link provided) is going towards zero very fast in the total number of links in the post. Almost nobody follows that third link, even if I think it’s some very interesting stuff. So, yeah… Oh yes, the fact:

Currently, defamation lawsuits in England and Wales are approximately 140 times more expensive than the average defamation lawsuit in other European countries.

The article the post links to has more. Btw., Simon Singh, the guy mentioned in the blogpost, won his trial (yes, I know, that was the third link…).

If you dislike the idea of foreigners dragging you, and other people they don’t like, to court in the UK, having you(/them… -ect.) go through a very expensive and long legal battle defending yourself against charges for doing stuff that’s not even remotely illegal in Denmark (or elsewhere, people living in the US are not much less vulnerable), and if you want to prove me wrong about people following the last links of a blog post, go here and sign the petition, if you haven’t already.

May 6, 2010 Posted by | freedom of speech | 2 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 146 other followers