Skip to comments.Inside The Mind Of A Scientist Who Made Up More Than 50 Studies
Posted on 04/28/2013 6:19:32 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
When you hear about well-regarded scientists making up data in their studies, it's easy to wonder, What were they thinking?
A New York Times Magazine .... profiled Diederik Stapel, a psychologist, former dean of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and author of at least 55 papers with totally made-up data. .....
The first time he did it followed a predictable story line. He tested a hypothesis, he didn't find the answer he wanted, and then he didn't want to have to redo the experiment or face the fact that he'd "wasted" all that time. "I saidyou know what, I am going to create the data set," he told the New York Times Magazine.
Later, he kept making up data to support hypotheses that were interesting, yet believable. The magazine described him as researching old studies thoroughly before making anything up. It seems he wasn't avoiding hard work. He was avoiding the occasional (or frequent) failure that comes with honestly done science.
(snip) He has since been the subject of media scrutiny in the Netherlands and an unflattering university report about his personality. .... Meanwhile, his case has brought an uncomfortable light to the field of psychology. Each of Stapel's fraudulent papers was peer-reviewed. Other psychologists had analyzed them and judged them of worthy of going to print. If they missed nearly 10 years of fraud from Stapeland it was a couple graduate students who ultimately blew the whistle on Stapel, not a peer review panelwhat else did they miss?
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
Many researchers may not be as bold as Stapel, but may cherry-pick the data they want, or analyze it in a less-than-ideal way for their own ends. Their cumulative effect on what's considered known and true in psychology could be grave. (End excerpt)
Chemistry is a science.
Psychology is a primative artform.
Science decided that they didn’t like the old accepted facts, so they have made up new accepted facts.
I used to reserve such criticism for the social sciences, but the hard sciences have proven themselves just as free with the facts, e.g. climate change.
Diederik Stapel, a psychologist,
***It figures. No real science here. Move along.
I don’t believe anything I haven’t satisfactorily verified for myself, including all the medical research I have to rely on in my practice.
Outside my area of expertise, I don’t even believe the hard sciences unless they are hard enough for engineers to verify the conclusions of the scientists with a widely proven contraption of some sort that has withstood the test of time.
Firearms come to mind. So do automobiles and planes, as well as BIC lighters, Gillette razors, and G2 Rollerball pens. Computers and electric can openers - not so much. Psychology - LOL!!!
Old-fashioned, Ludite, and proud of it.
I see a demon.
Does anyone remember the professor who made up his data on a pro gun control study. It was about early Americans not having very many guns at all.
He won a Pulitzer. I think he eventually got fired from Emory University in Atlanta.
In the middle I see Obama with a crown or pressure cooker on his head. I see Obama’s ears so it must be him.
I don’t need some big fat ass barking in my ear telling me what to do.
No, wait a minute...
He’s a psychologist of course it’s made up.
All of Stapel's 130 articles and 24 book chapters are under investigation by his former employer, Tilburg University in the Netherlands. The university suspended him in September 2011 and later discovered that, in addition to making up data, Stapel had allowed many of his students to graduate without ever completing an experiment. (Ref)
The gigantic fraud of global warming?
Does anyone remember the professor who made up his data on a pro gun control study
I remember the outcome fondly.
That was a guy named Belisle or something similar.
Yes that is the guy. I have no idea how to spell his name.
poor guy had to give back his Pulitzer.
It’s a lobster ready for the pot.
Man, you have way more imagination than me.
55 percent of statistics on the Internet are made up on the spot.
typical scientist, just makes sh*t up while collecting his fat taxpayer salary
Yes , it was sweet wasn’t it. Not only did he make himself a fool, but it was big news to.
As the drunks said of their cheap wine, “It’s peer reviewed!”
Belisides or something.
Anthropogenic global warming anyone?
If it can't be challenged it's not science.
Psychology is as far from science (redefining perversion as normal?) as astrology is from astronomy.
I think you misspelled "pee."
I just saw boobs.
It looks like Napoleon’s retreat from Russia.
Boobs? By golly, when you look at it again, it does look like Obama and Biden.
As part of my divorce the ex wanted the kids and us to go to a shrink. Older son found it worthless. The shrink maxed out the the visits to soak as much insurance as possible.
The only benefit I saw was on the final joint session with myself, ex and her husband when I let loose with both barrels; the husband’s only response was a stunned, “Dr. X, I’ve never been spoken to like that before in my life”.
Psychology exists to make Astrology seem credible.
Send him over here. I'll talk to him like a red-headed step-child, and beat him like a rented mule.
Texas has a fine reputation for creative insults. 2 years ago, I started what in academia would be a post-graduate study in being able to craft them on the fly.
That's a skill I want to have.
But yes, I hear you. What background stars were behind Mars when I was born doesn't have much to do with whether I should ride my bike tomorrow.
And I'm not going to take life advice from someone that's been in therapy for his entire professional career.
“If you torture the data long enough and hard enough, it will always confess” - Dr. Earl R. Rich.
Earl had all too many of the ‘Academented” succinctly described, way back in the 1990’s.
Once a voice up on a mountain top allegedly took a position against “false witness”. Arguably, ‘false witnessing’ is a choice even less wise now when said ‘false witnessing’ can be traced in the trail which the ‘information age’ tends to preserve, and reveal.
Doubt the above? Ask the Goron, the ghost of Sigmund Fraud (deliberate typo), the climate research ‘scientists’ at the METS Lab at East Anglia, ad nauseam.
Here's an example of a fraudulent evolutionist from a few years back.
The ease with which evolutionary fraudsters have for political purposes gained access to media and political prominence merely paved the way for promoting scientific fraud in other areas of "science" through the MSM -- and all for political and grant grabbing purposes that have nothing to do with the study of credible science.
As the Latin says, in wino veritas
I like it
I think this is more common than anyone would think, okay maybe not 50 of them.
how many of his students, in the workforce, have fraudulent degrees?
Fraud is nothing new in science.
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
It May Look Authentic; Heres How to Tell It Isnt
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
50 years ago, when I was studying Psychology at UofMD and OSU (and this guy would have been a student) my professors would have flunked him out so fast... He would never have had a PhD to abuse in the way he has.
What has happened to my field?
(( ping ))
Oh, you gotta see this!
This guy could be a “climate change scientist”.
Doesn’t this guy also go by the name “Michael Mann”?
Dolly Parton came to my mind!
Save for later reading.
I thought you weren’t supposed to post porn on FR.
Meat eaters are more selfish than vegetarians;
White people "became more likely to stereotype and discriminate against black people when they were in a messy environment, versus an organized one" to name a couple.
And other studies (now in question) used to influence our society, our leaders, because stereotypical progressive thinking media jumped on these findings that they liked.
I still maintained that 'hard science' is more difficult to fudge data, ('climate science' aside), but we won't know how broad the data tempering is unless the scientist comes forward him/herself.