Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data

You know, adopting a sarcastic tone in which to tell the exact truth doesn't make it one bit less true; nor does the word "Wahahaha" have any more power to abolish reality than, for example, the word "Abracadabra".Yes, it is in fact ethical and scrupulous for scientists to catch and denounce unethical and unscrupulous practitioners. That would be pretty much the sine qua non of an ethical and scrupulous culture. If you can think of any other way for a culture to be ethical and scrupulous, then I'm sure that we'd all like to hear it; I am fairly sure that neither this nor anything else was communicated by the word: "Wahahaha".We may with advantage compare the culture of science to a pseudoscientific culture such as creationism. If every creationist who made stuff up was kicked out of creationism, then we'd quickly reach the point where the last guy had to kick himself out.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You know how I explained to you that the word "Wahahaha" is not a magic word that abolishes reality?Well, it also doesn't work if you add an extra "h".But do please let me know if you can think of any reply to my post that involves actual English words arranged in grammatical sentences to form a substantive argument.

No, that's just ordinary good practice.It is, however, a shining example of virtue by comparison with creationists, faith-healers, and snake-oil salesmen. And concealed their crimes. If they'd turned all the kiddy-fiddlers in to the police, one would have nothing to say against them on this score. Scientists have the means, motive and opportunity to cheat. If no-one was ever detected in fraud we would have to conclude either that all scientists receive impeccable moral standards at the same time they get their BScs, or that no-one was bothering to look. And the presumption would have to be in favor of the latter.If from now on no athlete was ever caught using performance-enhancing drugs, would you suspect (a) that the morality fairy had waved her magic wand and made all athletes honest from then on in, or (b) that someone had invented a completely undetectable performance-enhancing drug? If he was never discredited, what makes you think that he should have been? Who?

And since no-one condemned him for his falsified data, I guess it was left up to you to obtain a ouija board and extract a confession from his departed spirit.Either that or someone did expose him so loudly and publicly that even you know about it. A professor's graduate students aren't part of the scientific community?What are they, chopped liver? Why are you pretending that he wrote that or anything like that?To put it another way: Certainly not your clumsy efforts at deceit.