Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8946 total)
29 online now:
Coragyps, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,875 Year: 20,911/19,786 Month: 1,308/2,023 Week: 259/557 Day: 70/76 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1 of 65 (577498)
08-29-2010 9:35 AM


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/science/28harvard.html?...

Excerpts:

"Harvard authorities have made available information suggesting that Marc Hauser, a star researcher who was put on leave this month, may have fabricated data in a 2002 paper...

"Some forms of scientific error, like poor record keeping or even mistaken results, are forgivable, but fabrication of data, if such a charge were to be proved against Dr. Hauser, is usually followed by expulsion from the scientific community...

"Dr. Hauser’s case is unusual, however, because of his substantial contributions to the fields of animal cognition and the basis of morality. Dr. Altmann held out the possibility of redemption. “If he were to give a full and frank account of the errors he made, then the process can start of repatriating him into the community in some form,” he said...

"The small size of the field in which Dr. Hauser worked has contributed to the uncertainty. Only a handful of laboratories have primate colonies available for studying cognition, so few if any researchers could check Dr. Hauser’s claims.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 08-29-2010 4:05 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31670
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2 of 65 (577505)
08-29-2010 10:01 AM


This is a great example of the ethical culture that is Science and that seems to be lacking in Theology. In science, even withholding data that refutes your hypothesis is grounds for sanctions.

This is an example of the scientific method at it's best.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 12:53 PM jar has responded
 Message 13 by lfen, posted 08-29-2010 9:40 PM jar has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 3 of 65 (577523)
08-29-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
08-29-2010 10:01 AM


Hahaha...catching someone in science using unscrupulous and fraudulent tactics to gain academic noteriety is evidence for the ethical, and scrupulous culture of science. Wahahaha.

You guys are good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 10:01 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 1:33 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 08-29-2010 2:40 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 4 of 65 (577530)
08-29-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 12:53 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 12:53 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 5 of 65 (577532)
08-29-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
08-29-2010 1:21 PM


Wahhahaha...you are a riot, A.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 1:45 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31670
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 6 of 65 (577535)
08-29-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 12:53 PM


Bolder-dash writes:

Hahaha...catching someone in science using unscrupulous and fraudulent tactics to gain academic noteriety is evidence for the ethical, and scrupulous culture of science. Wahahaha.

You guys are good.

Actually yes it most certainly is. The important thing is that there is a culture of ethics in science that is enforced by the scientific community.

The fact is that Science identified the problem and took actions to sanction the person.

This is entirely different then the culture in Christian Creationism and the ID movement in particular.

Take a look at the Wyatt Archaeological Research site or the Creation Museum where absolute falsehoods are not simply tolerated but celebrated.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 12:53 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 7 of 65 (577539)
08-29-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 1:24 PM


Wahhahaha...you are a riot, A.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:24 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 8 of 65 (577547)
08-29-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 12:53 PM


Bolder-dash writes:

...catching someone in science using unscrupulous and fraudulent tactics to gain academic noteriety is evidence for the ethical, and scrupulous culture of science.


Yes. Catching someone is a clear indication that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. You can't catch either misconduct or honest mistakes unless you look for them. Why don't creationists look for misconduct and honest mistakes among their own?


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 12:53 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1611 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 65 (577562)
08-29-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
08-29-2010 9:35 AM


First of all, Percy, that avatar creeps me out everytime I look at it. Could you please use something else less horrifying?

Any idea who blew the whistle on this one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 9:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 08-29-2010 4:46 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 65 (577571)
08-29-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
08-29-2010 4:05 PM


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:
In a statement, Altmann clarified for us what was missing in the videotapes.

In the 2002 Cognition paper, Hauser and his colleagues reportedly trained cotton-top tamarins to recognize two different “grammars”. These grammars were patterns in the sequence of syllables, for instance “wi wi di” (AAB) vs. “le we we” (ABB). One group of monkeys was trained on the first pattern, and the other group trained on the second pattern.

The investigators then played these sounds on a hidden loudspeaker, and watched the monkeys to see if they turned to look in the direction of the sound more often when they heard a different “grammar” than the one to which they were accustomed. Hauser and his colleagues claimed that they did, suggesting that the monkeys were able to distinguish between two underlying grammars. But Altmann says that, according to the Harvard investigation, Hauser lacked the critical control data showing how often the monkeys turned toward the loudspeakers when hearing their familiar grammar. “Perhaps they would turn round as often if they heard anything coming from that speaker,” Altmann wrote. “The experiment as run did not allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding monkeys’ ability to distinguish between different grammatical patterns.”

And that has led Altmann to conclude that the data were likely fabricated. “I am forced to conclude that there was most likely an intention here to deceive the field,” he says. “This is, to my mind, the worst form of academic conduct.” But this is just conjecture, he adds, and Harvard’s investigation gave no explanation for the discrepancy between what was on the tapes and what was in the paper. “Perhaps, therefore, the data were not fabricated,” he allows. “But I do assume that if the investigation had uncovered a more plausible alternative explanation (and I know that the investigation was rigorous to the extreme), it would not have found Hauser guilty of scientific misconduct.”

“Simply losing your tapes isn’t misconduct,” he added in a phone interview.




* 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 08-29-2010 4:05 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Modulous has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 11 of 65 (577621)
08-29-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
08-29-2010 4:46 PM


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?

The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know?

I wonder what you think would be evidence for some LACK of ethics in the scientific community-if they never caught anyone cheating? If they never had written a letter demanding action, and never reprimanded anyone, would that mean that cheating must be rampant?

BTW, Freud was never rebuffed, or discredited. He is still widely regarded today by many in the scientific community. He is one of the most famous scientists ever. I guess no students ever wrote a letter demanding action about his fraudulent behavior.

Funny though, Modelmiss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 08-29-2010 4:46 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:54 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 08-29-2010 11:03 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2010 12:02 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2010 1:10 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Larni, posted 08-30-2010 4:33 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 08-30-2010 5:32 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 12 of 65 (577637)
08-29-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 7:23 PM


Bolder-dash writes:

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?

The events at Harvard are an example of the self correcting nature of science. It isn't possible for a researcher to hide things he makes up about the real world because other researchers will try to replicate his results and see if the real world really behaves as he claims.

What's interesting about this case is that it didn't even get to the point of failed attempts at replication. His own students turned him in.

It would be nice if religion would shut down their charlatans, like faith healers Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:23 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 13 of 65 (577641)
08-29-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
08-29-2010 10:01 AM


jar writes:

In science, even withholding data that refutes your hypothesis is grounds for sanctions.

Unless you are doing research for a big pharmacy company. I wish we could bring those corporation to justice and remove their exemption from telling the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 10:01 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 9:47 PM lfen has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31670
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 14 of 65 (577642)
08-29-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by lfen
08-29-2010 9:40 PM


Ah, yes, contract and trade secret law.

But that is outside of the scientific method.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lfen, posted 08-29-2010 9:40 PM lfen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 10:08 PM jar has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1950 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 15 of 65 (577649)
08-29-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
08-29-2010 9:47 PM


Are you trying to tell me that you don't believe that scientists who are hired by large companies like pharmaceutical companies or oil and environment companies, don't withhold data they know is damaging to their company, or skew results that paint their companies interests in the best possible light?

Just look at virtually ANY self-funded research into the ill effects of a companies product and try to tell me you honestly believe this. It is not even possible to be that naive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 9:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 10:27 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019