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 said—you 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 Stapel—and it was a couple graduate students who ultimately blew the whistle on Stapel, not a peer review panel—what else did they miss?
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
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.
/johnny
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.
/johnny
“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.
Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'
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.
FReegards!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.