subbie writes:
...but at bottom, the validity of science is not based in any way on the motives of those doing the research, but the ability of others to verify the results produced.
I agree that replicability is is the overriding factor, but the part you began with also deserves comment:
To suggest that scientists funded by oil companies are doing "bad science" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. If research is funded by an organization with a stake in the matter such that it would like to see the research come out a certain way, that might be sufficient reason to question the work more closely,...
I agree with this, too, but there
*is* the example of some industries, like the cigarette industry for a long time, that makes it clear that while any industry can claim that their vested interests do not mean their research is biased, some industries
*are* actually engaged in bogus research and/or lying to the public either directly or by proxy through filings with public agencies. There have been a couple recent examples of pharmacological research (I think results were withheld rather than being bogus, but I could be wrong). And then there's the example of Lysenkoism in the former USSR, an entire country engaged in bogus biological research, except those sentenced to Siberia.
I think it does all of us some good to consider how we would respond if a true moral issue arose at work. I'm sure we've all disagreed at times with upper management to the point where we believe they've going beyond optimism and into the realm of misrepresentation, but it isn't really a moral issue to disagree with management about schedules or product lines or competitive positions. We should ask ourselves that if faced with a situation where our job and our family's security depended upon buying into an untruth, what would we do? This is probably the situation that many researchers in the cigarette industry and in Lysenko USSR inadvertently found themselves in.
The fact of the matter is that a great deal of research is conducted by someone who wants to see the results come out a certain way. I would venture to guess that most research is conducted by someone who has proposed a theory after observing a perceived regularity with a purpose to the research of gathering data to support the theory. Obviously, such a researcher hopes that the research will support the theory. That's precisely why it's important that results be repeatable.
Agreed. Like you, I feel confident that we can rely upon the requirements of replicability to eventually help scientists identify the more valid result, but that doesn't mean there aren't some groups engaging in bogus science. I agree that the mere fact that a group has a vested interest in a certain outcome cannot be considered evidence of malfeasance. There has to be other evidence, otherwise the conclusion is, as you say, an
ad hominem.
--Percy