[Sir Napsalot]

(More excerpt) In the New York Times Magazine reporting, he was open about his fraud and culpability.

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)

[JRandomFreeper]

Physics is a science.

Chemistry is a science.

Psychology is a primative artform.

/johnny

[SampleMan]

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.

[Kevmo]

Diederik Stapel, a psychologist,
***It figures. No real science here. Move along.

[Ray76]

He’s a psychologist of course it’s made up.

[Sir Napsalot]

Not just one "scientist"'s reputation at stake here.

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)

[mwilli20]

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?

The gigantic fraud of global warming?

[Our man in washington]

55 percent of statistics on the Internet are made up on the spot.

[Psiman]

typical scientist, just makes sh*t up while collecting his fat taxpayer salary

[count-your-change]

As the drunks said of their cheap wine, “It’s peer reviewed!”

[publius911]

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.

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.

[GladesGuru]

“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.

[Agamemnon]

What's with all these fraudulent Dutch scientists?

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!

[GeronL]

I think this is more common than anyone would think, okay maybe not 50 of them.

[Lancey Howard]

(( ping ))

Oh, you gotta see this!
This guy could be a “climate change scientist”.

[Lancey Howard]

Doesn’t this guy also go by the name “Michael Mann”?

[Jim Noble]

What IS truth?

What DIFFERENCE does it make?

2000 years apart. Rome. America. Pilate. Clinton.

SSDD.