Quote:
|
As a scientist, I believe that I have an ethical duty to tell the 'client' the truth - after all, the whole point of science (or at least a large part of it) is to determine the truth. If I can do that by simply reading through the 10 pages of BS that is presented to me and without the need of the client spending $2.5M, then that's what I'll do.
|
You've subverted your ethics immediately in your statement. You say it's your ethical duty to provide your 'clients" the truth and yet you proffer to them only an opinion (as an example here) of what you believe is BS, based on what you currently understand to be the case.
That's all you've offered...an opinion.
A true scientist is bound by their ethical duty to provide the facts...truth has nothing to do with it. Truth is as subjective as the person telling it. Regardless of one's opinions, it's your duty as a scientist to find out whether something is BS or not, from actual observation and experimentation (if need be). Reading a paper about something and then deducing from that (or having the preconceived notion that) it's BS, is not science. It's dogma...opinion. You probably did save that client $2.5 million, and that was a relatively good judgment call on your part, but what if you had been wrong. What if this had have been the case, in this instance (not necessarily about PM, but with any claim about whatever). By not making it your duty to going to see what it was all about may have cost your client a lot of money. Money that someone else may have made a profit from. Something that you may have even benefited from. You have to cover all your bases, otherwise you can be caught out all too easily.
Granted, given what we know, the device you gave your advice about most likely was just a piece of BS. Perpetual motion is a little hard to swallow, however it's not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that they may have come up with something else that's interesting which might have netted your client a good investment. Maybe not in that particular machine, but in something that machine may have shown. A particular method of doing something or whatever. Who knows. Only after exhausting all possibilities can you come out and say that this or that won't work. Opinions really don't suffice. They can only be taken at face value, as a guide. Not as a definitive answer.