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 piece has one answer. The 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. He even made up data for the graduate students he supervised. He would tell them he was doing their experiments for them, an unusual move, as many professors prefer to leave that tedium for their underlings.
The profile described a couple instances during which he fabricated data, going into detail about what he did. 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.
His frequent, high-profile studies brought him a great career, which his wife, Marcelle, said he might have been trying to share when he made up data for his students, too.
He has since been the subject of media scrutiny in the Netherlands and an unflattering university report about his personality. In the New York Times Magazine reporting, he was open about his fraud and culpability.
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? 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.
" Meanwhile, his case has brought an uncomfortable light to the field of <CLIMATE CHANGE>. Each of <INSERT CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT HERE> fraudulent papers was peer-reviewed. Other <CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERTS> had analyzed them and judged them of worthy of going to print. If they missed nearly <FORTY YEARS> of fraud from <INSERT CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT HERE>—and it was a couple graduate students who ultimately blew the whistle on <LOL, THIS IS FUN>, not a peer review panel—what else did they miss? Many researchers may not be as bold as <INSERT EXPOSED CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT HERE>, 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 <CLIMATE SCIENCE> could be grave."
There, fixed it.
Reading the headline I was convinced he would be a climatologist.
And still “science” devotees insist that everything “scientists” say is true and “science' is never wrong.
How could all these “studies” have illegitimate “data” and no one discover it in redoing the “experiments”?
How many subsequent “studies” and “theories” were based on these lies and equally claimed to have obtained corroborating evidence?
How many people were treated with methods that derived from these lies and were harmed by it?
How many valid statements were discarded by those insisting that Stapel's “date” were conclusive and they conflicted with the alternative theories?
How much of “science” is this happening in?
How much of “science' isn't this happening in?
What can be most annoying about scientist and theories as the theories age, simply because of age, the theory becomes an outspoken fact.
It is magic how a theory can become a fact via age. I am not sure if this is political driven or just the public becoming lazy in acceptance or perhaps driven by the popular science community too.
All I know, theories remain theories, until proven absolutely to be a fact and being just old is not fact making.
Yes evolution is still a theory, but go to a public museum or the library of congress, and the tour guides will speak as it being a fact.
@Amun-Ra: I think you make the same fundamental mistake as many other non-scients do when claiming that something is "just" a theory. In science, a theory is often pretty much, but not fully proven. Now, a hypothesis is another matter entirely...
There are some other theories in addition to Darwin's evolutionary theory, such Newton's theory of gravity and Enstein's special and general theories of relativity, among others. Are these just "theories" to you too?
As for “evolution”, in point of fact, nothing has yet been seen to evolve, in the sense of actually changing species. Genetic drift can take place, where the overall prevalence of certain pre-existing traits changes in proportion among a population because they are in a different environment. That isn't “evolution”.
As for either of the “relativities”, be frank, when did anyone ever really see them occur? “Scientists” issue “reports” from behind “laboratory” doors claiming they observed the effects, but no one of the “rank and file” ever sees it. And the equipment that they claim you need to observe it is all so expensive that no one in the “rank and file” has ever been able to afford to observe on their own.
And, note that “scientific journals” regularly refuse to broach subjects that challenge these ideas. Such as fish and other elementary animals in pellucid environments losing their coloration and their eyes. Staunch “evolutionary” devotees insist that they don't need them, therefore, y “evolution” they lose them. But even they misunderstand “evolution”. “evolution” is supposed to select against traits if they are dangerous to the creature's survival. Bright colors are not a danger in a blackened environment, so there is no reason for them not to have bright colors. Similarly, eyes don't endanger an animal in a world without light. They may not have much to do, but, then, they don't harm the creature, either. And no “science” journal wants to touch the fact that the Michelson-Morley Experiment does show seasonal variations, suggesting light has different velocities depending on whether you're approaching or receding from a source.
Julianpenrod- You're wrong, very wrong, about nothing being seen to evolve. Do you even understand what evolution is? Evolution is based on genetic mutation- which CONSTANTLY occurs. Evolution is everywhere. No, not just genetic drift, but guess what, genetic drift is part of evolution too. I would also like to point out that your observation about scientists observing things behind closed doors with equipment too expensive for anyone else to have seen it is just ignorant. You do realize that college students have access to these 'mythical' machines, right? That students of science are partaking in these experiments and studies all the time?
Amun-Ra- you don't seem to have an understanding of the scientific definition of 'theory'.
Yea sure, here ya go:
My first and main point from my above comment is I do not like when a theory because of age is delivered to the public as fact. No where below is the reference as a theory being a public fact or any fact. The topic of evolution was just one of many examples.
"...A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force..." ~
Funny in the comments in an article exposing how peer review isn't capable of keeping falsified 'research' from being published. The naturalists are still dogmatically defending evolution as if it is immune.
I guess that's what people do when you step on their religious toes.
The theory of evolution still best explains the fossil evidence, and it is backed up by genetic analysis of living creatures. If a better theory comes along that can explain the evidence better and make better predictions, then it will replace evolutionary theory.
But what if the research is false? What if observations have been skewed to fit the desired paradigm?
Piltdown man for example.
just as Susan answered I'm startled that someone can get paid $4123 in a few weeks on the computer. did you look at this webpage ,, http://www.daz7.com/
"Each of Stapel's fraudulent papers was peer-reviewed. Other psychologists had analyzed them and judged them of worthy of going to print."
I just need to say I TOLD YOU SO, to the world.
Psychology is not a good example of a science. There really is no way peer review could discover the fraud when psychology had no wrong answers, unlike chemistry for example.
So quit picking on the retarded kid in the group to make your point.
Peer review among psychologiest, 'Your wrong. No I am not. Your nuts then, lay back and tell me about your childhood'.
Just goes to show what some subscribers have known for a long time. If it's POPULAR, it's science. People will make damn sure it is.