Jared v. Hovind

More importantly, what positions have they reexamined ? If for instance they reexamined the position that nobody could be gullible enough to fall for Hovind's nonsense it still wouldn't speak well of Hovind.

I must say that Hovind is a potentially a very necessary evil. If people like him didn't exist I'm not particulary sure how many scientists would take to explaining science to the general public. For one thing its very difficult to communicate effectively to the public and another it takes near infinite patience to do it well.So in a way Hovind while propagating misinformation forces scientists to expend effort to in general educate the public. While this education does not get everyone at least a few people get it and then thats less ignorrant people left.Unfortunatly the down side is that Hovinds stances since they do appeal on a popular level it makes it alot easier for him to generate public support for a potentially very wrong cause.It would be nice if we had ethical and responsible public figures, it'd make life much nicer.

Thank you for your advice. I admit to not being as dilligent about stopping Hovind from his anecdotal rantings, mainly because I'm not sure quite how to do it properly. When he actually gives references for things, I check them out. When it's an unreferenced claim, I usually google it and find out that he's full of it.J

Scientific fraud is common. The resaons are many. The quest for Tenure and grants is so serious that people are willing to do anything. Who has the time and money to verify the authenticity and claims of those who publish papers? That means, we are left with false data and wrong conclusions. So much for competitive endeavor.

How common is scientific fraud? What percentage of scientists would you think have committed it? How many scientists are there? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

One surefire way to draw a thread off-topic is to make controversial and sweeping claims supported only by circumstantial evidence. You're welcome to propose a new thread to discuss the position that scientific fraud is common, but discussion in this thread should try to stay a bit closer to the "Jared v. Hovind" title.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Agreed, although I have to point out that it's unintentionally relevant. Hovind accuses science of fraud more than anyone else I have ever heard, except perhaps my mother.

Whole threads could be devoted to many Hovind assertions. As long as discussion here focuses on what Hovind actually says then I think it's on topic. This means that, "Hovind says scientific fraud is common..." would be on-topic because then discussion could turn to whether Hovind is able to support this assertion. But the more general "Scientific fraud is common..." would have to be ruled off-topic because it turns the discussion from how well Hovind makes this point (and how well you rebutted it) to the point itself.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I have been there. I was asked to extrapolate the results of one experiment and make it 10 in order to submit a paper for a conference. I refused. My grants were cut off. In that lab, this was the practise, It was a paper mill.

I worked in a lab and they give me 100,000 in unmarked notes to make up results. Then I was asked to swear my allegience to Satan.It's easy this isn't it?

I guess that makes two of us.

If you would like to propose a new thread to discuss the topic of scientific fraud then that would be fine, but scientific fraud is not the topic of this thread, so please do not discuss it here except as it bears directly upon this thread's topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Why do you not take the money and run? This remark is totally unwarranted. This is a mockery of every one in this forum.

nope, i think he is just mocking you..

I was actually making a serious point in a humorous way - original research (ie "it happened to me") is fine in the coffee shop but over in the science forums is less than useful.I'm not picking you out but virtually every creationists who stops by claim that scientists makes up results, and is called on that claim, is *suddenly* a scientist who was asked to make up results (or has a brother/uncle/goldfish who was).Personal testimony is worth less than zero in science - do you have any way for us to verify your story?