Just Because A "Scientist" Said It...

[LongJim]

...doesn't necessarily make it true.

Imagine that.

https://www-wired-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.wired.com/story/scientist-screwed-up-try-researcher-rehab/amp

 

[GTWT]

Science is a very human enterprise.  Sometimes scientists fake their data.  Sometimes scientists fudge their statistics.  Sometimes scientists succumb to their biases.  None of that is unexpected - you see it in all fields of human endeavor.  Sometimes our political leaders lie.  Sometimes our businessmen steal.  Sometimes our faith leaders are hypocrites.  The saving grace for science is that when a scientist is unethical, she’s almost always caught by another scientist.  A scientist submits her paper to a peer-reviewed journal.  It is reviewed by a number of experts in that field.  Then it is made available to hundreds or thousands of other experts to read, study, and analyze.  Do some scientists cheat?  Yes.  Bur the probability of getting caught is relatively high and the consequences dire.

.

[LongJim]

I think consequences depend on where the $ is going and coming from.  

Healthy skepticism of conclusions drawn by anyone is a good thing.  When $ and influence are involved, even a better thing.

Edited June 14, 2017 by LongJim

[GTWT]

25 minutes ago, LongJim said:

I think consequences depend on where the $ is going and coming from.  

Healthy skepticism of conclusions drawn by anyone is a good thing.  When $ and influence are involved, even a better thing.

Skepticism is good.  Cynicism not so much.

People who are motivated primarily by money probably should become something besides a scientist.

[LongJim]

3 hours ago, GTWT said:

Skepticism is good.  Cynicism not so much.

People who are motivated primarily by money probably should become something besides a scientist.

Agreed.

[Aldo]

4 hours ago, LongJim said:

I think consequences depend on where the $ is going and coming from.  

Healthy skepticism of conclusions drawn by anyone is a good thing.  When $ and influence are involved, even a better thing.

Healthy skepticism should come with knowledge on the subject matter.

I trust an economist will debate economic policy because he is an economist.

I don't trust an economist will debate the potential energy efficiency of a solar panel cell.

[LongJim]

1 hour ago, Aldo said:

Healthy skepticism should come with knowledge on the subject matter.

I trust an economist will debate economic policy because he is an economist.

I don't trust an economist will debate the potential energy efficiency of a solar panel cell.

I think what you describe goes without saying.  What I'm saying is that humans--being what they are--can be influenced, and their status or stature doesn't free them from scrutiny. 

[GTWT]

13 hours ago, LongJim said:

I think what you describe goes without saying.  What I'm saying is that humans--being what they are--can be influenced, and their status or stature doesn't free them from scrutiny. 

Every time a scientist publishes his work it is scrutinized.  The problem I have with your argument is that it is the tack so often taken by those engaged in science denial - creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vaccine nuts.  I don't think that's what you are, but you're making the same argument.

[LongJim]

5 minutes ago, GTWT said:

Every time a scientist publishes his work it is scrutinized.  The problem I have with your argument is that it is the tack so often taken by those engaged in science denial - creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vaccine nuts.  I don't think that's what you are, but you're making the same argument.

My argument?   I guess it's that human beings can be influenced to fudge based on the fact that they are human beings and with all being human implies, and I think that's what the article makes clear.  Whether one is a scientist or a mechanic does not change that behavior, and it's why there should always be skepticism (IMO) when federal $ is involved or when personal gain or fame is involved.  You may not agree, and that's ok.

[Aldo]

1 minute ago, LongJim said:

My argument?   I guess it's that human beings can be influenced to fudge based on the fact that they are human beings and with all being human implies, and I think that's what the article makes clear.  Whether one is a scientist or a mechanic does not change that behavior, and it's why there should always be skepticism (IMO) when federal $ is involved or when personal gain or fame is involved.  You may not agree, and that's ok.

When someone is being paid to write a scientific paper they have to disclose it in the article itself. And I'm talking about being paid by some corporation/private company to do the research.

It is definitely always recommended to check the end disclosure of a scientific article for this kind of info.

This is different from someone receiving federal dollars. These dollars are hard to come by, and extremely competitive. If you screw this up, you'll likely never receive funding again. 

The level of scrutiny is high, and occasionally, these types of "bad" research gets through. But it's at the risk of ruining your career over personal glory.

At the same time, the scientific method is designed to challenge norms. Sometimes the challenge comes up with the same results, strengthening the robustness of these norms. Sometimes, the types of scientists you are referencing can't reconcile and screw it up for the rest of science. Screw them, they get called out by the community (their area of expertise) and have a long way to make amends, including sitting through a boring class.

[keith]

On 6/14/2017 at 0:15 PM, GTWT said:

<snip>  Sometimes scientists fake their data.  Sometimes scientists fudge their statistics.  Sometimes scientists succumb to their biases.  </snip>

Then they are NOT scientists.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Reguarding so-called scientists and politicians ....... do they have anything to gain from a certain "position" ...  

.

Always consider the sourse. ....Had several  UNT profs pound that into us... 

Edited June 21, 2017 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, keith said:

Then they are NOT scientists.

You're right.  Science is a search for truth.  When they fail to meet that standard they are pseudo-scientists.

[FirefightnRick]

We need someone to open up a Journalism rehab center now.

 

Rick

Edited June 22, 2017 by FirefightnRick

[Aldo]

15 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

We need someone to open up a Journalism rehab center now.

 

Rick

That's actually a genius business idea. A consulting firm that trains about ethics and integrity.

[FirefightnRick]

I thought this was an interesting read by Micheal Goodwin of the New York Post.

 

.The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=august2016&hootPostID=407cb24f5ae2aaf462346c7c8452fb19

 

 

Rick

 

[LongJim]

19 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

I thought this was an interesting read by Micheal Goodwin of the New York Post.

 

.The 2016 Election and the Demise of Journalistic Standards

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=august2016&hootPostID=407cb24f5ae2aaf462346c7c8452fb19

 

 

Rick

 

It's a great read.  Thanks for linking.

I personally believe that print media has essentially been killed by the internet and instant "news" available on websites that any cretin with an internet connection can put up.  Journalistic integrity is pretty much gone, because of ad $ generated from clicks.  The more sensational the article, the more clicks, and who cares if it's half-true or not properly vetted?  We'll just post a retraction or "correction" later.

Maybe.

[UNTLifer]

The sad part is that, especially on a national news level, 99.9% of what you hear is opinion based.  It would be nice to bring back Zombie Cronkite to read the news.

[LongJim]

Kudo's to CNN on this one...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/three-resign-from-cnn-after-russia-story-retraction/ar-BBDiEMf?li=BBnb7Kz