- #1
- 18,994
- 14,470
Last edited by a moderator:
It made me wonder if there are fields that may be fraud-proof or at least less susceptible to it, given the nature of the work?And these are not merely academic matters. Particularly when it comes to medical research, fakery hurts real people. Take the example of Joachim Boldt – the German anesthesiologist who, with 186 retractions, now sits atop the Retraction Watch leader board of scientists with the most pulled papers.
A specialist in critical care medicine, Boldt studied a blood substitute that was used in hospitals across Europe. His results, which were published between around 1990 and 2009 and widely cited, suggested that the product – used to help keep blood pressure and the delivery of oxygen to cells adequate – was saving lives. After his fraud came to light and researchers reanalyzed all of the available data while leaving Boldt’s results out, it turned out the opposite was true: the substitute was “associated with a significant increased risk of mortality and acute kidney injury”.
Something something something funding gravy train, I think. But there seems to be good money in being a professional iconoclast and promoting speculation as OVERTURNING EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT PHYSICS!!!! So I don't buy it.topsquark said:(I've never been able to get out of them the reason why.)
Well you can take some comfort from the fact that the TV show "Ancient Aliens" stated conclusively that Einstein himself wasn't actually all that bright but that he had a psychic link to Aliens and they told him about the theories.topsquark said:I mention that my life would be a lot easier if Einstein were indeed wrong ...
It hasn't already?TeethWhitener said:The cynic in me might suggest that the Guardian publishing this news with an ominous tone is largely a function of their own concern that the same sort of accountability might soon catch on not just in academia, but in mainstream journalism.
Since the Guardian is left-leaning, you may not like its slant but I have seen no evidence that its articles are incorrect.Vanadium 50 said:I am curious as to the relative sizes of the fraction of physics results that are, well, let's say known to be incorrect at the time of submission for publication and the same for Guardian articles.
There are plenty of people who would rather an independent newspaper like the Guardian ceased to exist. And that the news media generally were left solely in the hands of meglomaniac tycoons.phinds said:Since the Guardian is left-leaning, you may no like its slant but I have seen no evidence that its articles are incorrect.
On media representation and honest reporting.PeroK said:There are plenty of people who would rather an independent newspaper like the Guardian ceased to exist. And that the news media generally were left solely in the hands of meglomaniac tycoons.
However, this angle is concerning -she is suing the bloggers that uncovered the fraud for defamationLnewqban said:"And in June it was revealed that a scholar at Harvard Business School, Francesca Gino, was accused of having falsified research about – wait for it – honesty."
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184289296/harvard-professor-dishonesty-francesca-gino
"He produced super-misconductivity"“The University has completed a thorough investigation conducted by a panel of scientists external to the University who have expertise in the field,” University of Rochester spokesperson Sara Miller says in a statement to The Verge. “The committee concluded, in accordance with University policy and federal regulations, that Dias engaged in research misconduct.”
Last year, Dias co-authored a research paper in Nature highlighting a nitrogen-doped lutetium hydride. The paper claimed the material could conduct electricity at ambient temperatures without resistance. (If that sounds familiar that’s because you’re thinking of the supposed LK-99 superconductor that went viral on social media last year.) Scientists later found inconsistencies in Dias’ research.
I have read that same thing in several places in the last couple of months. Seems to be quite an issue.Vanadium 50 said:China. The CCP puts enormous pressure on Chinese researchers to publish in Western journals. They do not put the same degree of pressure to do good science.
Mmm.Lnewqban said:"And in June it was revealed that a scholar at Harvard Business School, Francesca Gino, was accused of having falsified research about – wait for it – honesty."
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184289296/harvard-professor-dishonesty-francesca-gino
Totally agree.f95toli said:I agree that fraud in science is a serious problem. However, I am not at all sure there is a direct link between this and the lack of trust from the public. The latter seems more related to a general lack of trust in "authority" and the idea that everyone's opinion about a topic is equally valid irrespective of the level of expertise. I don't believe fraud was much of a factor in e.g., the discussions around the safety of COVID vaccines
A wonderful idea, and approximately zero chance of it happening.Filip Larsen said:I wonder if some of the remedies Sutter suggests also are applicable on a broader scale to re-incentivize society to be more careful to associate discussions of facts with a proper level of quality?
I agree. There is a great deal of ignorance of how science functions, and that leads to people with agendas to use "science tells us" in ways that advance their agendas, but are not exactly scientific.Filip Larsen said:it surely concerns me greatly that science as whole, and not "just" a few isolated fields anymore, has become less trustworthy
Sure, less backlash. Also, LOTS of cases where Aholes insisted that it was OK for them to stand directly behind you and breath down your neck, because after all there was no suggestion that you HAD to maintain distance. In the actual case, social pressure (and little painted footprints on the floor) at least kept up the 6 feet, which, yes, is totally arbitrary and I think that was a good thing.Vanadium 50 said:People are not stupid. They know this doesn't make sense. Had the position been "Prudence suggests staying away from other people, because they can be infectious without showing symptoms. There is no separation that is absolutely safe, so be smart and try and keep as much distance as you reasonably can" I think there would have been much less backlash.
But Science!phinds said:It DID get particularly silly when there were multiple lines with people standing 6 feet apart but right next to others in the next line over.
It's about the divergence of the language describing 'science' and 'common sense'Vanadium 50 said:But Science!
Yes, they use the precise language of science, not the often vague language of common English.Rive said:The same divergence can be identified on the forum too. Professional answers often has no decipherable meaning to simple questions: they are using different language.
I think so called scientific results are all have biased and subjective to a different degree. I question how many people actually research into something without any preconceived idea or looking for a specific result.phinds said: