|
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2002 : 18:26:22
|
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/htmlCache/2002-09-25T203511Z_01_N25338405_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-MISCONDUCT-DC.html
Just waiting for the Fundies to come out saying "See all your science is falsified!".
Of course the Fundies won't acknowledge the fact that this guy (and others found guilty recently) get fired, have all their published papers retracted, and are blacked balled all in the public eye. This is also done by colleagues and not forced by the media or lawsuits.
Just look at how the church still dances around the issue of their Priests buggerin' altar boys. Of course any retribution and acknowledgements had to be beaten and dragged out of the church by the media or lawsuits.
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
Edited by - LordofEntropy on 09/25/2002 20:52:02
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2002 : 20:03:40 [Permalink]
|
From the article:quote:
Scientists at rival laboratories, however, had difficulty reproducing the results of Schon's work, thwarting a checks-and-balances process integral to the scientific method. Some noted striking similarities in supposedly random elements of graphs that appeared in his published work.
Who discovered the false data? That's right, baby. Other Scientists. This is why science can never be dogmatic. Science rules, religion drools.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2002 : 10:53:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who discovered the false data? That's right, baby. Other Scientists. This is why science can never be dogmatic. Science rules, religion drools.
I don't want to say that the scientific methodes itself is flawed or anything like that, but it becomes more and more obvious that the checks and balances in our current implementation are less then perfect. People keep contiuning to write their name under papers they have not really worked on and never checked. There have been a host of fakes that have gone though most of the system like this without being discovered and there are bound to be more fakes waiting to be discovered still out there. I think that some changes will have to be made.
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2002 : 07:06:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted - 09/26/2002 : 10:53:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who discovered the false data? That's right, baby. Other Scientists. This is why science can never be dogmatic. Science rules, religion drools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to say that the scientific methodes itself is flawed or anything like that, but it becomes more and more obvious that the checks and balances in our current implementation are less then perfect. People keep contiuning to write their name under papers they have not really worked on and never checked. There have been a host of fakes that have gone though most of the system like this without being discovered and there are bound to be more fakes waiting to be discovered still out there. I think that some changes will have to be made.
Peer review generally takes care of most fakery in science. I think scientists take care of fakery very well. When something new comes along, it gets accepted pretty quickly if it survives scientific scrutiny. The careers of scientists who fake their data are permanently demolished. I do not think that there are prisons for crank scientists -- only self-inflicted oblivion.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2002 : 20:00:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Peer review generally takes care of most fakery in science. I think scientists take care of fakery very well. When something new comes along, it gets accepted pretty quickly if it survives scientific scrutiny. The careers of scientists who fake their data are permanently demolished. I do not think that there are prisons for crank scientists -- only self-inflicted oblivion.
ljbrs
In theory yes, but in the real world we have seen many examples were this does not work anymore. Not so much the basic ideas behind as the way we implement them. Scientis contiue to put their name under anything they can get their hands on without ever having being involved in the work. They continue to refernce without having read the original paper just copy&pasting quotes from one another. Many don't have time anymore to actually critically review the works of their peers. The specialization makes it worse that on some topics, hardly anyone knows enough to be able to review even if they have the time an inclination.
Those are not problems with the scientific methode. It is a problem with the methodes of todays scientist. There also is no easy solution for it. |
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2002 : 23:12:56 [Permalink]
|
| Given the volumn of scientific research being conducted these days, I'm rather surprized this doesn't happen more often. A "gentleman" scientist of the 18'th or 19'th century might have the leisure and where-with-all to spend many years writing an "Origin of Species", but today's scientist are under enormous pressure to publish, as it is those who publish who get the big grants to buy the fancy toys. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
