I have heard glowing reports of this mans research on N.P.R. I remember questioning their validity at the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazi...ed=all&_r=0 I know its long, but it is enlightening.

OK, in the middle of the night I read this article.
To me, it is very good......mostly because I see this happening in other fields.
Honesty isn't convenient enough to garner much enthusiasm in today's world, it appears. Pitiful, and very destructive. I believe that fraud continues to exist in high places, because the "little people" seek to improve their lot in life by not exposing the perp.

I want to see more replies to this thread.......please.
(well done, blackmouth)

Seen it during my education. Companies putting out ten or twenty different "studies" look for a specific finding. Any that dont help or show promiss are cancelled prior to completion to avoid having to show results. When they found the one or two with the correct "results" that are statistically significant they publish.


Sad state of "science" we see sometimes in a world driven by profits.

One of the beauties of science is that it is self-correcting. Sometimes with a big upheaval, but usually increment by increment a closer truth is revealed. This is why we understand that former conclusions were flawed, and why, in the future, the truth as we know it, will evolve from where it is today. "Best available science" is a term that gets thrown around a lot. But it's important to look closely at what that means. All things considered, this is the best conclusion we can support today. And if today's conclusions are based in part on fabricated data or analyses, evolution toward a newer truth will come much more rapidly.

Sg

"And I think it's because good cons are all based on the victim's need, and the successful con artist is the one, I guess, who can exploit that. I remember reading something about this, that one of the great traits of confidence tricksters is the level that they flatter their victim."

Alfred Molina

I found the most interesting part of the article to be, how easily, almost willingly people can be deceived when the deception reinforces their basic value system, or beliefs.

It takes a person at the top who seeks "truth" with a passion to listen and digest information that runs contrary to the hallowed concepts......especially when those hallowed concepts are the result of present and future grant monies.

Sg....appreciate your input on this.....although I find it confusing. I'm not sure how adding or subtracting known false information can be considered an advancement. Does it not ignore any responsibility for the impact to trusting citizens?

Slab,

Yeah, too short of an answer. Science doesn't really advance when false or deliberately deceptive information is used, but it can "appear" to advance. I was more focused on the self-correcting part, in that it's just a matter of time before other investigators, through independent research, or trying to replicate the deceiver's research, will discover the truth. Science, like most things, experiences setbacks, but the over-all steady trend is progress toward the truth.

Sg

Rather than "dazzle me with data", the "baffle me with bulls'" axiom seems to apply.