|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data | ||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I believe his students first raised concerns about some of his conclusions by writing a letter. Then Harvard began an internal investigation, found evidence of misconduct under Federation of American Scientists' regulation and are now cooperating with the Mass. District Attorney's office in their investigation (federal funds were used).
Clear evidence of secular atheistic cabal of elite who will go to any lengths to cover up the Great Lie that morality can exist without God 'because monkeys can be moral'. A point that Balderdash has cunningly* pointed out. I have referenced some of Hauser's work (though I don't think anything where he was lead author) here at EvC so I'm rather interested in the outcome of this one. He has so far admitted to 'mistakes', but has not admitted to misconduct.
Here is a bit about the Editor in chief of Cognition, the journal that published the paper:
quote: * Cunning: The skill of being sly, conniving, or deceitful. Word chosen for the Baldrick reference. Cos you know, Bolder-dash, Balder-rick and so on. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Surely you are not also going to claim that because a guy lie and cheated, and was caught by a major university, and they actually did something about it, that this is a great badge of honor for the scientific community are you? I am not going to claim that because a guy lied and cheated this is a great badge of honour for the scientific community. That a guy lied and cheated is almost an inevitability in any human endevour. It is neither an honour nor is it necessarily a stain on on science. It's to be expected. What I am, and what others have likewise claimed, is that 'honour' is gained in the method of handling cheats. There is no honour in football where one player assaults another. There is honour in football when a player is sent to prison, given a playing ban, and a hefty fine for assaulting an opponent during a game.
The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know? From what I can tell, the main executive branch of the Catholic Church has gone out of its way for thousands of years to avoid looking bad by whatever means necessary. Prosecute the occasional transgressor, move a transgressor to another location in another case, bribe/threaten the victims in yet another, commit mass slaughter in another, torture in yet another, book burnings, legal wranglings, etc etc This does not strike me as being a particularly honourable way to deal with things.
I wonder what you think would be evidence for some LACK of ethics in the scientific community-if they never caught anyone cheating? No - that would be suspicious in its own right! Evidence would include things like concerns about ethics are raised by small groups and individuals who are sufficiently close to detect them - which are denied, ignored, glossed over etc by scientific institutions.
BTW, Freud was never rebuffed, or discredited. He is still widely regarded today by many in the scientific community. quote: From Lecture 3, Introduction to psychology, Prof Paul Bloom: Professor of Psychology at Yale University. Sorry, you were saying something about Freud never have been rebuffed or discredited and how the scientific community holds him in high regard?
I guess no students ever wrote a letter demanding action about his fraudulent behavior. To what fraudulent behaviour are you referring?
Funny though, Modelmiss. Modelmiss?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You completely missed the point about Freud. Freud falsified data. He completely made things up, and he created false patients. He was a fraud. How did I miss the point? I asked you want examples of fraud you were referring to, that's all.
The people who are discussing his ideas are not condemning him because of his falsified data, they are condemning his ideas-ideas which people are still aware of even to this day, 70 years after his life. Indeed. That's because his ideas are far more interesting than than that. But my point was that your statement:
quote: Is false. Because he was, and is as demonstrated. But I must once again correct you: Many people are discussing not only Freud's unfalsifiable theories but the cases that he claimed he had cured (when he hadn't). Which, as Dr A tried to alert you to, is how you know it is true.
you are aware of Freud because of his fame within the world of psychology, and are apparently are not even aware of his instances of falsified data. His infamy, more accurately, I'm afraid. As I have demonstrated - within Psychology, Freud is largely ignored as irrelevant in most ways. His fame outside of the academic arena is largely not down to the act of 'science'. Freud courted the public and his ideas captured the public's imagination and famous jokes surrounding his work have cemented his identity in our consciousness. 99.9% of people who know about Freud would only be able at best to give a halting account of the Oedipus complex and the anal/oral stages and stuff. But that's because they're so outrageous they stick in one's memory quite well.
That right there shows that the "scientific community" is not vigorous in its self-policing because of some great ethical commitment. So let me get this straight. A person falsified their data to conform their unfalsifiable theories which science wouldn't accept even if it were true does it matter that they falsified their data? Their theory is hopeless anyway! For his original ideas of non-conscious events, for example, he is celebrated. For the clinical results of psychoanalysis: Not so much.
Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students! I find it funny that you give archaeologist 'credit' for pointing this out. Presumably you refer to Message 22. One assumes you didn't really read Message 10 in which my opening paragraph goes:
quote: Nevertheless, a Professor's students are very much part of the scientific community. Indeed, much of the grunt work of the paper would probably have been carried out by his students - so they are often the best people to raise the concerns in the first place.
How in the world can anyone try to use this as evidence of the great moral code of science? That's utterly ridiculous. What happens when concerns are raised by people about creationists? They are apologised for, excused - or supported with vitriol and anger agaisnt the 'rabid atheists'. Those claiming fraud are likened to Hitler and any other distraction techniques. Compare what Harvard did - launch a vigorous internal investigation - find problems, sanction the scientist, alert the Feds and release a press release. They didn't try and cover it up. One shows integrity. The other shows cowardice. What would you teach your children? To own up to mistakes and take steps to rectify them? Or to lie, deceive, dig ones heels and and refuse to accept mistakes?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's not a way to detect frauds actually it is and we can do so without losing 8, 12, 40 years.
If only things were so simple. Does monkeys spotting grammar patterns contradict the Bible? If it doesn't - then your method is useless for this case (and indeed 99% of all other cases I'd wager).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024