Con Men in Lab Coats [how science corrects itself]

Scientific American ^ | March 2006 | By the editors

[Virginia-American]

...as all creation "scientists" are like Hwang...

I wish they were treated like him. Exile for life the first time fraud is found.

[Mamzelle]

re: If you're trying to reproduce someone else's work)))

Well, that's exactly why "scientists" in CA wanted $3Billion. (That's a B. As in bogus, boolah, bodacious...)

[Tribune7]

That's the thread were you insisted that the "textbooks *are* clear about the provisional nature of phylogenies, and do *not* teach them as "definitive" "

You sorta kinda left quietly.

I'm still waiting for my apology, btw

[facedown]

I imagine it's a bit before most folks time on this board but there was a case about 30 years ago when a grad student claimed that he had solved the tissue transplant rejection problem. He had white rats onto which he had grafted skin patches from black rats and had no apparent rejection for months. It was a huge breakthrough with obvious medical implications. He was the toast of the biomedical community and had offers from all over the world.

It turned out that he was doing white to white allografts and then, I am not making this up, coloring them in with magic marker. He was never heard from again.

He was caught the same way they always are: his own data didn't quite add up and nobody else could reproduce it.

Science bumbles along in fits and starts, leaps and backsteps, sideways slithers and moments of blinding revelation. Ever was, is and will be.

[js1138]

Dan Rather was exposed because there are people who have detailed knowledge of the history of typewriters and typesetting. The same is true of the stem cell fraud.

Rather may have been exposed by FR, but the stake was driven through his heart by people from Apple and Adobe who actually designed the computer fonts. Without credible experts on our side, FR would have been ignored.

Scientific frauds are exposed by other scientists. There is no other source of opinion that is relevant.

By what standard, using what logic, does a creationist expose Piltdown man?

[Ichneumon]

Science doesn't correct itself; scientists do.

What you're missing is that scientists correct each other BECAUSE they follow the procedures of science itself.

But why should we trust them to correct themselves? Just like journalists correct themselves, or the United Nations can correct itself? Often, and in each case, you're fighting a personal agenda. Therefore, it takes people of differing persuasions to point out the flaws, like FR/bloggers did for The Dan.

Again, you're missing the Big Fat Point: The methods of science are constructed SPECIFICALLY to ensure that things get tested (via reliable methods which are designed to minimize personal subjectivity or bias or wishful thinking) and that they get REtested over and over (via methods which are designed to cross-check and re-test and re-examine things in an exhaustive manner).

[Tribune7]

He generalized too far, and made some bad claims

He did a lot more than that. He falsified data in an attempt to lead to a conclusion.

[curiosity]

Peer review catches some of the garbage but independent replication of experiments in other laboratories is the ultimate test. How the fraud is detected depends on how clever the perpetrator of the fraud is.

Actually, peer review, by design, CANT'T detect fraud. Peer reviewers do not attempt to replicate what the author of a study did. They thus have to assume that the researcher is being honest. Their job, rather, is to make sure the methdolody, as described by the researcher, is sound and whether the conclusions he draws from his results, which again they have to assume are accurate, are warranted.

[curiosity]

As others have pointed out, a biochemist -- not Wells --actually was the one to publicize that fact.

Actually, I thought the Richardson was an embryologist.

[curiosity]

He did a lot more than that. He falsified data in an attempt to lead to a conclusion.

And he was caught.

[TASMANIANRED]

Science has become too politicized. As a field it is strewn wide with frauds.

The Only real science being done these days is in private business.

When Science has to pay for it self, the results are more likely to be truth.

When Science is beholding to someone else for a handout...Science will produce what the donor wants irrespective of truth.

[Mamzelle]

Emotion and demagoguery were a feature in Whang's skyrocket to success. If you looked at my link, you'll notice he's a Pretty Face and was quite the feted celeb in SK high society.

The "scientists" got all excited, saw fame and dollar signs, lost sight of rationality. Of course, they also jazzed themselves up with lots of bashing of the religious, who take a dim view of experiementation on human embryos.

[Mamzelle]

Not by your system. It were a pajama-man what killed the beast.

[TASMANIANRED]

The only problem is.....Science didn't demand the fake drawings be removed.

They are still being published.

They won't be removed because the political agenda of the educators demands they continue.

[Virginia-American]

MZ: This fraud was outed by a Korean pajamahadeen, not the precious system.

DLR: Therefore, it takes people of differing persuasions to point out the flaws,

AFAIK, there has never been an error exposed by a CRIDer.

One of the reasons that scientists have higher standards of honesty than lawyers, politicians, CRIDers, et al, is that their data can be reproduced by anyone with the time and the right equipment. There is a real chance that they will be found out if they lie.

Another reason that their standards are higher is that the penalty when they're caught lying is total loss of career and prestige. Exile for life.

How much better the world would be if the DI held to the same tough standards!

BTW, again AFAIK, there has never been a case of a scientist caught using a "mined" quote. Why do you figure that is?

[Ichneumon]

That's the thread were you insisted that the "textbooks *are* clear about the provisional nature of phylogenies, and do *not* teach them as "definitive"

Indeed, and I was correct, and you were, as I pointed out, making a false claim which you could not support and failed to retract.

You sorta kinda left quietly.

Because a) you had already demonstrated across several days (via repeated attempts which fell flat on their face when examined) that you were unable to support your claim, b) you had demonstrated that you were unable to even grasp why your attempts were failing to miserably, c) you were too proud to admit your error, and d) other posters were doing a fine job of pointing out the truths of (a) and (b) and (c) even after I got sick and was unable to keep giving you enough rope to hang yourself on those points, nor do any other substantive posting for the next few weeks.

I'm still waiting for my apology, btw

Well keep waiting, because I'm not in the habit of apologizing for being correct.

When are you going to apologize for your false claim about textbooks?

[TASMANIANRED]

Captions would be nice.

[curiosity]

The only problem is.....Science didn't demand the fake drawings be removed.

Wrong. They have been removed. See the following link:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

[Mamzelle]

Wow, that was the most illogic-packed post I've seen in a long while, even for an upset evo.

How in the world can one say that a creationist is incapable of noticing an error? Mad assertion.

Scientists are no better than anyone else, no more moral. No halo with that white coat, just the same doom to frailty and failure. Seems to me that a lesson on Original Sin would have done Gerald Schatten and Woo Whang a world of good.

Evo "scientists" would seem to be made of scaredy-cats--what drives them so silly with fear at questions and challenges?

[js1138]

Captions would be nice.

Why should I provide captions? If the Haeckel drawings are frauds, and embryos of different species, even different families, do not resemble each other, then it should be a snap to identify the photos.