Re: Schadenfreude

In fairness, I thought I would post a link to Michael LaCour's LaCour_Response_05-29-2015.pdf.

defense of his publication, as mentioned in a blog post by myself on Thursday, May 28, 2015 (Schadenfreude).


This response is not convincing to me, or a lot of other folks.  (See

the response (The Strangest Thing About LaCour’s Response -- Science of Us) to LaCour's response by Jesse Singal, who wrote an expose article (The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a Graduate Student Reluctantly Uncovered a Huge Scientific Fraud).


In LaCour's document there is a technical discussion about the data, though the basic question is not why a different group got different results, but why the original results looks too good.


And more disappointingly (as I was hoping for a good story), LaCour's response does not address

1. Why there is no trail for the surveys.  That survey data might be deleted as part of an IRB agreement is not unreasonable -- though typically, it is delayed for sometime because of just such potential issues. 
2. That the survey firm which was supposed to have conducted the survey denies that it did so.
3. That the existence of his alleged contact at the firm does not appear to exist.

In the "impeach the witness' credibility" category, it is reported that there is a lack of evidence that he received a teach award he reports on his vita, and that one of his funding sources appears not to exist (Michael LaCour Made Up a Teaching Award, Too -- Science of Us).