Found a very nicely written
article written by a Physicist, (Laura Greene) about a new book called:
"On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science",
David Goodstein, 2010 Princeton University Press.
Quote:
Scientists have a macabre fascination with fraud. Some of the most famous recent cases – including those of the physicists Victor Ninov and Jan Hendrick Schön, who falsified results in nuclear physics and nanotechnology, respectively – have remained hot topics for years, continually generating investigations, articles and invited talks at scientific conferences. Part of the reason for this fascination is the damage created by fraud, which not only pollutes the scientific sea, but also causes other scientists, including graduate students, to pursue research in erroneous directions. That cost in time, funding and hampered or even destroyed careers is not even calculable.
Another part of the fascination is that the typical scientist, when confronted with clear fraud, often remains in denial. As scientists, we train ourselves to detect what Irving Langmuir called “pathological science”, in which practitioners park their scientific method outside their laboratories and replace it with wishful thinking. We have learned to review articles and listen to presentations while carefully considering any possible over-interpretations, including those that stem from ignoring data points that do not fit the theory the author or speaker “believes” to be correct. Being human, we have all been guilty of pathological science to some degree; being scientists, we rely on colleagues to guide our way to new knowledge and understanding through discussions, reviews and reproducibility.
|
Thought provoking stuff and whilst I don't see that we've had any fraudulent material presented here, we should all be aware of "pathological science".
("Pathological science" contrasts to "Pseudoscience", which has no pretense of following the scientific method).
The last highlighted statement above, captures my thoughts on the reasons for trying to keep Forums like this one, focused on mainstream science views.
I feel the value of the Forum rapidly diminishes if we ever lose that 'anchor'.
Cheers & Rgds.
PS: Apologies to the more experienced types who are highly aware of the above points. It doesn't hurt to get a reminder, every so often.
