Are Scientists Less Moral or Honest than Non-scientists?

Iano is poking fun at John Kerry who has fallen out of favor for making that statement.Stupid Kerry. And to think I voted for him. ANd to think I would again given his opponent..

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Yes, I recognized that. But it was still inappropriate.

I've read up on scientific fraud. One thing struck me: I can only think of one case where a group of scientists collaborated on scientific fraud. By contrast, I tend to avoid reading about grisly crimes, yet I can think of numerous cases in which people have collaborated to commit murder.This suggests that the scientific culture is such that it is all but impossible for one scientist to say to another: "hey, let's falsify our results".The same applies, incidentally, to plagiarism: I know of no cases of collaborative plagiarism in science.

Well, think about that for a minute. I mean you've offered no evidence to substantiate your implict assertion that those people act any less morally or ethically than an average person. Certainly there's the perception that we can expect them to, but why does that perception have to be taken at face value? Especially when we know confirmation bias operates in the human mind?It's a lot more likely that lawyers, journalists, or politicans are generally no more unethical than anybody else. It's simply a fact that, because the ethical guidelines of those professions are more rigid and explicit, it's a lot bigger deal for a lawyer to take an unethical act than, for instance, Iano to take that same act. In fact what is perfectly fine for Iano to do may be a major ethical infraction for a lawyer. Or maybe it was the result of bad methodology, or even your girlfriend's incompetence at her job. I see absolutely no reason to impeach the impartiality of some unnamed scientist based on your say-so. There's a hundred reasons to disregard data, especially in any science that deals with living things, and 99 of them have nothing to do with cherry-picking your data.

Actually, I initially thought you were joking when you said what you said. Then I realised you weren't.I'm not sure why Kerry said what he said but I suppose he didn't really intend to imply that Iraq was filled with uneducated Americans. And I must suppose you didn't really intend to say that it will be the moral who will tend to rise to the professional classes.But it sure sounds like thats what you said: It sure does read as though you are saying that losers equates to moral inferiority. And that education is the filter which will tend to eliminate the morally inferior leaving the morally superior to occupy the professional classes.I would have thought that lack of intellect, finance, opportunity, ambition, interest, etc.,etc. would work to keep people from occupying the professional classes. Not moral inferiority. Indeed I can't see why immorality/amorality should prevent someone occupying the professional classes when that very characteristic would be useful ones effort to climb to the very top of said class.In querying whether your 'losers' should be sent to Iraq I was filling in the second half of your logic. The parallel logic which Kerry (unintentionally, I reckon) drew. I suppose you didn't intend it as it came out. I least I hope you didn't.It was a joke of sorts. But aimed at your (presumably unintended) gaff - not Kerrys

I didn't define "loser". But I think most people understood "society's losers" to refer to people who have trouble getting a job, and thus have a difficult time surviving. Some of those people turn to friends for help, and some turn to criminal activities. I don't think you would have much difficulty finding that criminals are disproportionately society's losers. No, I did not. Those in the military are not society's losers. They have found productive things to do. They do have decent jobs. We should be proud of those who dedicate themselves to this form of public service. Shame on you for considering them losers. It sure looked like one. Most scientists do not work for drug companies, or for tobacco companies. Most work in environments where the pressures are to do honest work.I already stated (in Message 3) that professionals are subject to corrupting influences. You added nothing to that, other than inuendo. We have pretty good evidence on this.If anybody publishes important results, other scientists attempt to repeat the work. Some may attempt to repeat because they think it wrong. Others may attempt to repeat, to learn from the experience. Mistakes, whether due to carelessness or dishonesty, are usually found out. The only time there is no checking, is when the result is so umimportant that nobody thinks it worth repeating.If a problem is found with published work, there is typically an examination of what went wrong. That's where dishonesty is rooted out.I am not in any way suggesting that science overrules human nature. I was only arguing that there are less temptations toward being dishonest in scientific work than in some other kinds of work. And I was also clear that this applied to some (but not all) other professions. I was not trying to paint scientists as angels.

Pharmaceutical research is renowned for fudging results. Indeed, any time we can identify a researcher's funding is coming from a group that clearly wants a certain result we should be suspect. Other studies have shown a clear bias that comes through in these cases.This applies to pharmaceutical research funded by a drug company. It applies to a global warming study funded by an oil company (or a liberal activist group). It also applies to creationist foundations such as ICR/RATE.This phenomenon is the reason why it has been agreed it is good methodology to have your results tested by an independent laboratory before publishing. This doesn't always happen - and the work is appropriately critiqued since the work has not been rigorously replicated.A scientist's work stands on his credibility and integrity. However any given scientist might be less or more moral than a non-scientist. I don't think there is much to separate the two. Since the risks to one's career for falsifying results are often severe, regardless of the personal ethics of the scientist they tend to stick to a professional code of ethics. Many scientists adopt their professional code as their own personal code, but not all.There is a clear financial incentive for honesty in science (it makes keeping ones job easier. And given the amount of training and work any given scientist has usually undertaken in order to get the job in the first place - this is quite an incentive). However, there is a clear niche where dishonesty/poor methodology from scientists can provide financial reward.There are plenty of people that wish to have pseudo science confirm their beliefs. The researcher's that exploit this are often funded by public donation or (for example in global warming research) from donations from major corporations where a clear conflict of interest exists.If, for example, there was an opportunity for appealing to a certain portion of the populace by justifying their belief through pseudoscience one can ask for voluntary donations and sell books in the public domain, then we might find a certain amount of scientists corrupted by easy money. These scientists are those who would sacrifice their professional ethics and replace them with their own personal ethics.They can stay in business by appealing to a sense of fairness and insisting that the scientific community which has denounced their work is dogmatic and unfair.I'm sure we'd agree that this would make those scientists less moral.The only real moral issue we need to consider ourselves with as far as scientists are concerned is whether their personal ethics mean they follow their professional ethics. I contend it is immoral to announce that one is a scientist when one does not subscribe to the professional ethics of science.I further contend that most people that call themselves scientists follow that same code of ethics, however a (significant) minority of people claim to be scientists and do not follow the scientific ethics.

And I am not trying to paint them as devils. Maybe I should have said as much at outset.I suppose 'losers' as now defined them make up a tiny proportion of all people. The patently 'immoral' by virtue of having been caught or having had the cops call around only to hear the wife tell them (whilst nervously looking at her husband) that the black eye is the result of walking into a door. Trailer Trash is the (objectionable) term I believe.Your main conviction as to the morality of scientists (and other professional classes) is thus: trailer trash is not represented amongst them. I don't want to hound you on this NWR. I would just ask that you appreciate my taking issue with this if it is indeed the 'main' reason you had for supposing scientists as moral. Both you and I might agree that there will be scientists wives who walk into doors too.Lets leave John Kerry and those brave men and women in Iraq in peace (whatever the wisdom or otherwise of the men and women who sent them there)I'll come back on the rest of your post later. This corrupting influence I'd like to look at more.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A response to your question, taken from another thread. http://EvC Forum: The consequences of "Evolution is false" -->EvC Forum: The consequences of "Evolution is false" More or less as well as any other human attempt to control themselves. The fact that such measures are needed is not very condusive to the portrait of scientists you have purchased.Peer review may not be the worst of all human attempts at honesty and integrity, but that is not the point. The point is that the better our attempts succeed, the more difficulty we would have in uncovering the sohistication of the new lie.It still boils down to the inmates running the assylum."Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."
(C. S. Lewis) It's not a matter of incompetance really. It's a matter of having the courage to question such a massive institution at the expense of immediate reward. I mean... could that many people really be wrong?And they data may very well work in the confines of science and logic, but what happens when you bring in the moral side of the equation. There are many scientists as well as non-scientists, that consciously put aside the moral questions for obvious reasons (which are necessarily a conflict of interest).We must all be self-aware of bias. Being a scientist does not make one immune from bias, rather, in its extreme (in the name of science) we can become even more prone to bias. The reason I say this is, by -excluding- the moral equation (being biased against it (which is rare in its entirety. Nazi Germany is the quitessential example), we actually become monsters who put no limitation on anything. All in the name of science.There are simply some things we must be biased and prejudice about."All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt."
(C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain)

---

"Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
(C. S. Lewis)

I thought I had replied to this earlier. There is a downside to tabbed browsing. You can sometimes close the tab when you meant to hit a different button (such as submit). I avoid the term "trailer trash". As far as I know, there are some decent people living in trailer parks.I now realize that you completely misunderstood my earlier post. So, to help explain it, here is a parallel example.

The life expectancy of scientists is greater than the life expectancy of the population as a whole. That's because scientists are mostly over 20 years old, so when calculating their life expectancy we are not counting the deaths of those who don't live to age 20.
​
I could summarise that as saying that scientists have a greater life expectancy for reasons that have little or nothing to do with science.

In the same way, my point was that scientists are more honest than the population at large, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with science. In my opinion, Modulous explained that well in Message 22.

Problem:When you exlude the "losers" all the non-loser population rises - not just the educated classes you referred to. There is no more reason to suppose the burger flipper as any less moral than the scientist.The scientist is more moral than the loser is all you've said (which I assume you take to mean a tiny fraction of the population) The only way this works is is the population at large are in some manner or form, losers.What makes the uneducated burger flipper more a loser than the scientist?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I have not suggested that the burger flipper is a loser. It's the guy stealing from the burger place who is a loser. I'm saying that there is a weeding out process before you get to be a scientist, and that weeding out process is biased against the dishonest.

quote:

---

My girlfriend was put to work during her college years in psychology on research her professor was carrying out to establish some notion or other. He had a theory. Her research brought out information that seemed to act counter to the notion. It was buried.

---

Can we find out the particulars of the research that was buried and what wasn't?Like, who was the professor?

quote:

---

More or less as well as any other human attempt to control themselves.

---

That's not what I asked.You know very well that I did not ask your opinion on how well the process works.I asked you to briefly run down the steps of the process so I could be reasonable assured that you understand it.Here, let me help you get started;Let's say that I am a Physicist, and I have been doing some research. I have done all of the statistical analyses, written up my results, created the graphs and charts and tables, and now I want to submit it to the pretigious professional peer-reviewed Physics Journal, "Cool Physics N Stuff".What's my first step?

"Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think.
All nonsense questions are unanswerable."
(C. S. Lewis)Now if a man can pull this off with God, then a woman can surely pull it off with a man.This is where I find myself. Confronted with an irrelevant question. A trap.Like asking someone, 'Does your mother know your stupid?"How do you answer that question?Luke 11:53 When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54 waiting to catch him in something he might say.John 7:30
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come."Unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which we have in moments of shame must be the only true one..."
(C.S. Lewis) Edited by AdminPD, : Warning