"A popular view propagated by the media and by many scientists sees fraudsters as just a “few bad apples”. This pristine image of science is based on the theory that the scientific community is guided by norms including disinterestedness and organized scepticism, which are incompatible with misconduct. Increasing evidence, however, suggests that known frauds are just the “tip of the iceberg”, and that many cases are never discovered. The debate, therefore, has moved on to defining the forms, causes and frequency of scientific misconduct."
PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (https://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738)
Clancy
07-13-2009, 09:02 AM
Ironically, since it's still the best tool we've got, they use the scientific method to come to their conclusions.
"A popular view propagated by the media and by many scientists sees fraudsters as just a “few bad apples”. This pristine image of science is based on the theory that the scientific community is guided by norms including disinterestedness and organized scepticism, which are incompatible with misconduct. Increasing evidence, however, suggests that known frauds are just the “tip of the iceberg”, and that many cases are never discovered. The debate, therefore, has moved on to defining the forms, causes and frequency of scientific misconduct."
PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (https://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738)
Dixon
07-13-2009, 08:16 PM
Ironically, since it's still the best tool we've got, they use the scientific method to come to their conclusions.
That just about says it all right there!
Of course, I'll still put in my $0.02 worth, to wit: I'm not surprised by these findings. Nobody claims that scientists are exempt from the natural tendency (of all organisms) to act self-centeredly, which may often involve acting unethically. But before Wacco's resident science-bashers start crowing about how science is therefore no more valid than their favorite systems of fallacious folderol, let me point out that, more than ANY other system of thought, spiritual or secular, science recognizes our human tendency to be mistaken and/or dishonest and takes great pains to correct for that, for instance by requiring independent replication and a very transparent openness to critique. Again, no other system of thought makes as much an effort as science to correct for our natural dishonesty. When was the last time your church or local "alternative healer" came up with a falsifiable hypothesis and tested it rigorously to see if their beliefs are wrong?
That being the case, even if most scientists were faking their data, (which is not the case), science would still be superior to faith, tradition, pseudoscience, or whatever when it comes to discovering truths about the objective universe.