Skip to comments.
Scientists exposed as sloppy reporters
New Scientist ^
| 09:30 14 December 02
| Hazel Muir
Posted on 12/14/2002 12:59:17 PM PST by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Hum.
1
posted on
12/14/2002 12:59:17 PM PST
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
In academia, the phenomena has long been known as "Publish or Perish".
It's related to the widespread pursuit of "junk science" as well.
Academic "researchers" publish "scientific" studies that support predetermined outcomes merely for the purpose of securing grants that are awarded politically.
To: Willie Green
studies that support predetermined outcomes
Right on the money there. That's highlighted by the obvious mis-referencing of articles by the author of a new paper. He doesn't care what's in the original article, he has his own agenda to persue.
3
posted on
12/14/2002 1:21:28 PM PST
by
lelio
To: Willie Green
>>> for the purpose of securing grants that are awarded politically.
Why go to a lot of work. If the conclusion isn't PC they won't get any more grants. Correct has nothing to do with it.
4
posted on
12/14/2002 1:25:50 PM PST
by
Dan(9698)
To: vannrox
I'm sure someone will say this is the final proof that evolution is a fraud and that therefore the universe was indeed created in seven days, 7000 years ago.
5
posted on
12/14/2002 1:31:18 PM PST
by
jlogajan
To: vannrox
misprints in references are fairly common, and that a lot of the mistakes are identical Happens in textbooks, too. Even math textbooks. It's not hard to tell who has decided to write a textbook and who is on the forefront of math research. They aren't the same people. Those who write textbooks often come close to outright copying of examples and methods letter for letter. That, plus the mass of typos and poor grammar is either on the increase or we're just getting more aware of it.
To: vannrox; amom; Yellow Rose of Texas; Alamo-Girl
Interesting post! Bump!
7
posted on
12/14/2002 1:36:30 PM PST
by
TEXOKIE
To: vannrox
bump
To: vannrox
It's possible to have read the original and to have copied an erroneous reference.
9
posted on
12/14/2002 1:42:06 PM PST
by
edsheppa
To: Willie Green
Not to mention painting "tumors" on mice. Wunderkind in their own minds...
10
posted on
12/14/2002 2:27:36 PM PST
by
185JHP
To: vannrox
And how well do reporters report science?
To: RightWhale
So true. Many science textbooks have mistakes. A good professor will go through the book and find them and correct them so the students won't be mislead or confused.
There is a lot of sloppy science out there in the world of research, lots of cheating such as manipulation of data, and stealing of ideas from others goes on.
12
posted on
12/14/2002 3:52:00 PM PST
by
DBtoo
To: DBtoo
Many science textbooks have mistakes. A good professor will go through the book and
find them and correct them so the students won't be mislead or confused.
One biochemistry textbook I was burdened with during graduate school was rife with errors.
Given the name of the author, we came up with this phrase:
"It's Right or It's Rawn".
(yeah, the author's last name was Rawn)
There is a lot of sloppy science out there in the world of research, lots of cheating
such as manipulation of data, and stealing of ideas from others goes on.
As the venerable chairman of the graduate department said to me "about one-third
of published works are true and correct, about one-third are usable but have
relatively inconsequential errors, often in the form of honest mistakes; the final third
are full of errors and never should have been published."
I don't know if the breakdown is that even, but I do think that the external review
process used in the science world of the USA (and most of Western Europe) does a
good job of winnowing out the junk, while not overly constraining the flow of
new data/information.
But like any human system it does break down at times.
What is wrong is that more science frauds don't go to jail for mis-use of
government funds (which prop up about every research lab) when a clear
case of fraud is uncovered.
But, in a society where folks in many other institutions don't get the punishment
they manifestly deserve...it's no suprise that fraudulent scientists don't
often end up in orange jumpsuits.
13
posted on
12/14/2002 4:06:54 PM PST
by
VOA
To: Willie Green
Like the 'professor' who wrote that anti-gun paper who gto hoist by his own petard.. and then some?
Naaah. Scientists wouldn't do that! There's no politics in science! / sarcasm
To: jlogajan
...the universe was indeed created in seven days, 7000 years ago. No, that was just the last "system reboot" after a serious local galactic arm system crash. Took that long to recover and reapply all the data. Which is why while day one was the "Let there be Light (1:3-5)", it wasn't until day 4 that the creation of the "Sun, moon, and stars occurred (1:14-19)". In a system recovery, you don't have to recover everything in the original order, but you do have to turn on the lights in the computer room while you are working.
Oh, what caused the local galactic arm system crash?
Just kidding. Maybe. :-)
To: TEXOKIE
Thank you so much for the heads up!
To: jlogajan
You're as predictable as the sun.
To: vannrox
This suggests that many scientists take short cuts, simply copying a reference from someone else's paper rather than reading the original source. That doesn't mean they didn't read it. This is a false dichotomy.
New Scientist is a strange magazine.
To: vannrox
This must be one of the most stupid studies on record: the assumption, that a scientist must read the original paper, is wrong. Since the study is done by information "scientists" (librarians), they simply do not know that.
When citing a paper, one often gives credit to the original inventor or developer of a result or an idea.
When someone refers to Newton's law, he almost certainly have never read Newton. I certainly hope not: this would be a compelte waste of time when studying science (as oppostite to history thereof).
19
posted on
12/15/2002 2:24:43 PM PST
by
TopQuark
To: Willie Green; lelio
Sounds like you've never even been to the same room with a scientist. But go ahead: demeaning someone make you look taller. The other way, of course, is to grow, but that's much harder: you'll have to know what you are talking about.
20
posted on
12/15/2002 2:27:16 PM PST
by
TopQuark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson