Scientific Fraud...

[shunyadragon]

What's the alternative in the decision-making process to basing our decisions around research that has a small likelihood of being fraudulent or false? What source of information is of the same or higher quality while being less likely to be fraudulent of false?

Also which other 'source of information' has the redundant research, peer review before and after publication to reduce frauld and bad research?

[MaxVel]

The redundancy of research and peer review before and after publishing is simply a fact of the history of modern science. Probability has nothing to with this issue.

So you made a unsupportable claim, then. I agree that some scientific fraud is uncovered by the process of repeat experiments, review, etc. But how much slips through...? We just don't really know.

We do know that it's often hard to get funding, peer review and publication for repeat experiments:

And yet, the incentives for replications in scientific institutions are weak. “Novel, positive and tidy results are more likely to survive peer review,” said Nosek. Novel studies have a “wow” factor; replications are less exciting, and so they're less likely to get published.

It’s better for researchers’ careers to conduct and publish original research, rather than repeating studies someone else has already done. When grant money is scarce, it’s also difficult to direct it towards replications. With scientific journals more likely to accept novel research than publications, the incentives for researchers to participate in replication efforts diminish.

A study done on psychological research found that only about 40% of the results were repeatable. See the link above, also here.

[shunyadragon]

So you made a unsupportable claim, then. I agree that some scientific fraud is uncovered by the process of repeat experiments, review, etc. But how much slips through...? We just don't really know.

We do know that it's often hard to get funding, peer review and publication for repeat experiments:



A study done on psychological research found that only about 40% of the results were repeatable. See the link above, also here.

Your moving the goal posts, psychological research is more in applied sciences. Your original post referred to fraud in basic sciences such as Geology. I will give you the problem of psychological research, because the evaluation of behavior is often subjective. You are also not dealing with deliberate fraud here.

I will stick with foundation basic sciences, that can be repeated and falsified by objective data as reliable and fraud is consistently in recent history uncovered.

[MaxVel]

Your moving the goal posts, psychological research is more in applied sciences. Your original post referred to fraud in basic sciences such as Geology. I will give you the problem of psychological research, because the evaluation of behavior is often subjective. You are also not dealing with deliberate fraud here.

I will stick with foundation basic sciences, that can be repeated and falsified by objective data as reliable and fraud is consistently in recent history uncovered.

With every post you backpeddle a little more, or add another qualification to your original statement.

You could just admit that your first claim was far too broad, and asserted as probability something we just don't have much data on.

[Carrikature]

Pretty sure this thread doesn't belong in Philosophy. Can we get it moved somewhere a bit more appropriate?

[shunyadragon]

With every post you backpeddle a little more, or add another qualification to your original statement.

You could just admit that your first claim was far too broad, and asserted as probability something we just don't have much data on.

No back peddling at all. The original post was about 'fraud,' and your reference about psychological research was not about the problem of fraud.

What's the alternative in the decision-making process to basing our decisions around research that has a small likelihood of being fraudulent or false? What source of information is of the same or higher quality while being less likely to be fraudulent of false?

You have failed to respond to this.

You are actually 'appealing to ignorance' as a justification for your argument, and ignoring the factual history science and scientific research, which supports the concept of the correction of fraud and bad science..

[shunyadragon]

It would help if you could site some good source on the over all instance of fraud like the following instead of shooting at ghosts with a shotgun.

Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Daniele Fanelli


Abstract

The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

© Copyright Original Source

[MaxVel]

Pretty sure this thread doesn't belong in Philosophy. Can we get it moved somewhere a bit more appropriate?

I think the Padded Room is full...

[shunyadragon]

I think the Padded Room is full...

We took the buttons off the walls and the mattress so you would not eat them.

[HumbleThinker]

What's the alternative in the decision-making process to basing our decisions around research that has a small likelihood of being fraudulent or false? What source of information is of the same or higher quality while being less likely to be fraudulent of false?

Bump. I'm genuinely interested in what your alternative would be.

All the alternatives I can think of are making decisions based on nothing (total arbitrariness), making them based on our intuitions or experience (the "common sense" approach), making them based on our own learning (the self-taught method), or making them based on our formal education or education from a trusted person (effectively no different than basing our decisions on what experts say).

Do you have an alternative that I did not think of here? Or do you believe one of these alternatives is better making our decisions based on what experts say?