Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[featherstick]

http://www.badscience.net/

[JavaScriptDonkey]

(To take an example of scientific self-justification: I've been reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Diamond describes how he has been criticised for being an adviser to Big Oil regarding environmental issues. Now I don't doubt that he is a very ethical man, but he takes at face value the "concerns" expressed by his paymasters about the environment. Clearly, from a PR point of view, it helps them to have a high-profile academic like him "advising" them - and from a PR point of view it helps them to respond to a few of his concerns. But he really seems to believe - or rather, to convince himself - that their concerns are really, deeply ethical, rather than merely about PR. Yet why should they be?)

Perhaps because 'big oil' is in fact a collection of human beings that happen to work as managers and directors for some publicly owned companies. They still have children, grandchildren, extended families and probably love nature as much as anyone else.
There is also the not insignificant problem of being sued into obscurity if they break local/federal/national environmental protection laws.

As to scientific peer review. It all depends on who is doing the reviewing and whether too much emphasis is given to individuals as being 'the highest authority'.

I had my eyes opened as a post grad when working on a sub-project spawned from a soon to be complete thesis. With out going into specifics the mother project looked to be a massive irrelevance that was a dead end and was already out of date but reputations were at stake so it was all dressed up in positive spin and meaningless statistics. It didn't help that the supervising lecturer's grasp of probability was shaky at best.

For adequate balance I must say that other professors were of the highest integrity.

[UndercoverElephant]

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

Rubbish.

A relative of my (abortive) PhD supervisor used to work as a research chemist at Oxford University. So appalled was he at the constant fiddling of results that he quit the job to go and work in what he described as a "more ethical" field. That field was advertising.

In any job, when the stakes are high, pressure is put on workers to bend the rules and cover up contentious information. The main pressure to be honest comes not from personal or institutional integrity, but from the fear of being found out.

Have you ever seen the documentary about why the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded? It was because engineers with reservations about safety - a couple of whom actually predicted the accident - were pressured into keeping quiet.

OK...re-reading this thread and this deserves a response. You have provided an example of where scientists are being employed by a large organisation which has a long history of serious mismanagement followed by cover-ups. In other words, the scientists in question (engineers, really) were put under intense pressure by non-scientists to keep quiet (rather than lie.) This is a good example of a serious failure of organisational politics within NASA, not a good example of scientists lying. It's not interesting from the point of view of the general honesty of scientists compared to politicians, but is very interesting from the point of view of how serious avoidable mistakes/accidents/slips occur. Another way of putting this is to say that there is nothing about this incident which indicates something untrustworthy about scientists, but there's plenty of interest with respect to powerful non-scientists being able to over-rule scientists for reasons which have little or nothing to do with science.

Never underestimate the power of the desire to keep one's job. A scientist's career can be ruined by telling the truth. The more important or secret the project, the more this is the case.

Scientist's careers are never ruined (long term) by telling the truth, even if they have broken the Official Secrets Act. Falsifying results and making major mistakes is what ruins scientist's careers.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

conclusive proof that Buzz Aldrin at least has been to other worlds.

[Ludwig]

Thanks VTSnow and JSDonkey for supporting my point.

I admire science as a practice and I don't believe most scientists would choose, other things being equal, to falsify or misrepresent results. But there is a patent conflict of interest when "independent" research is financed by organisations whose profits or reputation depend on a particular result.

The True Believers in the incorruptibility of the scientific establishment think that scientists are somehow immune to the pressures that the rest of us face in our lives and careers. Which of us hasn't, at some point in our lives, had to make a compromise with our conscience or principles to get or stay out of trouble? If you've got a family dependent on you, the choice is perhaps not so very hard to make.

I've seen numerous people behave in the workplace against their principles, and much, much more people simply keep quiet about things they didn't agree with. I've done the latter myself. Really, you have to believe in something very strongly to set yourself in (typically impotent) opposition to your taskmasters.

I don't need Caspian's statistics and proofs to tell me what observation and common sense say is the case.

[caspian]

I admire science as a practice and I don't believe most scientists would choose, other things being equal, to falsify or misrepresent results.

But that isn't the impression you gave earlier when you responded to UE's perfectly reasonable assertion that scientists, unlike politicians, aren't involved in widespread lying. Politicians are liars in their bones - it's almost a job requirement these days. As UE just pointed out, the risks for a scientist to be caught falsifying data are enormous, and the idea that this is a widespread practice is not borne out by the evidence. I'm sure you'll ridicule me for my quaint and old-fashioned adherence to facts and evidence, but I happen to think that they're important.

But there is a patent conflict of interest when "independent" research is financed by organisations whose profits or reputation depend on a particular result.

The most obvious being big pharma, and I would agree that commercial money does muddy the waters. However, if a drug doesn't work because the data has been falsified, then it either won't get adopted (NICE gets bashed a lot, but it's there for a reason) or it'll fall out of favour pretty quickly. Conversely, so-called alternative medicine generally bypasses these checks, mainly because it cannot pass muster under truly scientific protocols.

The True Believers in the incorruptibility of the scientific establishment think that scientists are somehow immune to the pressures that the rest of us face in our lives and careers.

This is a straw man. I've never heard anyone say that scientists are above the usual human foibles. Sometimes those human qualities are helpful - appreciating the majesty of nature at the most fundamental level is driven by the emotions, not just by the pay cheque at the end of the month.

I don't need Caspian's statistics and proofs to tell me what observation and common sense say is the case.

"Common sense" is subject to being skewed by personal biases. You might disagree, but proof and evidence are important, and not just in the obvious areas like science and law.

[DominicJ]

This is a good example of a serious failure of organisational politics within NASA, not a good example of scientists lying.

That would be the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Scientists dont lie, well, except when put under pressure to, isnt exactly ringing endoresement.
Auditors dont lie.
Enron still failed, because, why, its auditors were pressured to lie, and did....


Few people lie except when facing pressure too.
My Co-worker, mere moments ago, asked me what my plans were for the weekend. My response was, "nothing much", because, I have no plans.
If I planned to go camping, I would have said, go camping, I was having an affair with her husband and we were going for a drug fuelled dirty weekend, I probably would have lied.

Scientist's careers are never ruined (long term) by telling the truth, even if they have broken the Official Secrets Act. Falsifying results and making major mistakes is what ruins scientist's careers.

Got some evidence to back up that statement?

[Ludwig]

I admire science as a practice and I don't believe most scientists would choose, other things being equal, to falsify or misrepresent results.

But that isn't the impression you gave earlier when you responded to UE's perfectly reasonable assertion that scientists, unlike politicians, aren't involved in widespread lying.

No, he said they're not capable of widespread lying.

Politicians are liars in their bones - it's almost a job requirement these days. As UE just pointed out, the risks for a scientist to be caught falsifying data are enormous,

That is not a given, at all. Who is the ultimate "authority" that determines whether to expose scientific fraud? It's the governments and corporations that give scientists their pay checks.

and the idea that this is a widespread practice is not borne out by the evidence.

Two people here, apart from myself, have given first-hand accounts of scientific deception.

Of course, those accounts are anecdotal, and it seems to me that for that reason, as far as you're concerned, they can be dismissed as untruth. The only evidence you accept is that provided by the scientists themselves.

Thus, I can't possibly win any argument on the terms you set, any more than I can win an argument against someone who says that the Bible is the only source of truth.

I'm sure you'll ridicule me for my quaint and old-fashioned adherence to facts and evidence, but I happen to think that they're important.

Of course they are, but "facts" and "evidence" have human sources, and it is wise to consider the impartiality of those sources.

But there is a patent conflict of interest when "independent" research is financed by organisations whose profits or reputation depend on a particular result.

The most obvious being big pharma, and I would agree that commercial money does muddy the waters. However, if a drug doesn't work because the data has been falsified, then it either won't get adopted (NICE gets bashed a lot, but it's there for a reason)

Of course - it's there to reassure people that checks are in place.

Do you think the bashing it gets is unmerited?

or it'll fall out of favour pretty quickly.

Conversely, so-called alternative medicine generally bypasses these checks, mainly because it cannot pass muster under truly scientific protocols.

If huge corporations peddled alternative medicine, they would obtain the evidence to support it, you can count on it. They wouldn't even have to lie outright - they could arrange research where the placebo effect yields the results they desire.

There's a phenomenon in the scientific community called the file-drawer effect. Studies that fail to yield the desired results are simply filed away, unpublished. It doesn't even involve lying, so science remains untarnished.

The True Believers in the incorruptibility of the scientific establishment think that scientists are somehow immune to the pressures that the rest of us face in our lives and careers.

This is a straw man. I've never heard anyone say that scientists are above the usual human foibles. Sometimes those human qualities are helpful - appreciating the majesty of nature at the most fundamental level is driven by the emotions, not just by the pay cheque at the end of the month.

But it's the pay check at the end of the month that is the important thing, for most people. My argument is that the threat of its withdrawal makes most people prepared to compromise with their consciences, and often to deceive themselves to justify it.

I don't need Caspian's statistics and proofs to tell me what observation and common sense say is the case.

"Common sense" is subject to being skewed by personal biases. You might disagree, but proof and evidence are important, and not just in the obvious areas like science and law.

Impossible to argue with someone who says there's no such thing as common sense.

In my experience, militant rationalists have poor judgment when it comes to human nature: they take everything at face value and have no sense whatsoever of deep human motivation - their idea of great literature and profound characterisation is JRR Tolkien, and the only distinction they make between people is whether they're "good" or "bad". You're doing it yourself: scientists are "good" (so can be trusted), politicians are "bad" (so they can't). No room for subtlety and anbiguity of motive, things that any perceptive person can see are the very essence of real human behaviour.

[caspian]

Of course, those accounts are anecdotal, and it seems to me that for that reason, as far as you're concerned, they can be dismissed as untruth.

Nope, that's not what I think. I'm not dismissing things merely for being anecdotal, I'm simply saying that one cannot use anecdotes to "prove" that scientists are involved in widespread fraud. Such a serious accusation requires some pretty robust evidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser to come up with the goods, and not on me to defend the reputations of scientists. If you'd said "some scientists have been found to commit fraud" then I'd have no hesitation in agreeing with you. But that's very far from saying that science is somehow institutionally corrupt.

Of course they are, but "facts" and "evidence" have human sources, and it is wise to consider the impartiality of those sources.

To my mind, a fact is a fact, independent of human beliefs and desires. It is a fact that gravity attracts one body to another, or that the sun rises each day. Those facts don't change with the opinions of the person stating them. That way lies the nuttier fringes of postmodernism.

If huge corporations peddled alternative medicine, they would obtain the evidence to support it, you can count on it. They wouldn't even have to lie outright - they could arrange research where the placebo effect yields the results they desire.

If the research was conducted using double-blind protocols, this would not be possible. If they weren't using such protocols, the research would be considered sub-standard and even if published in a peer-reviewed journal, it would be rejected by any decent systematic review, e.g. the Cochrane Collaboration.

Impossible to argue with someone who says there's no such thing as common sense.

Where exactly did I say that there's no such thing as common sense?

[DominicJ]

Governments are quite capable of lying to us on mind-boggling scales, but scientists are not.

Thats what me and Ludwig are challenging.
Government scientists lie all the time.

SARS is a threat
Bird Flu is a threat
Pig Flu is a threat
BSE will kill Millions
The only way to deal with a mad cow disease outbreak is mass slaughter.

Ect.

[UndercoverElephant]

BSE will kill Millions

You've got this exactly backwards. The lie here was a classic political misdirection: "There is no scientific evidence to support the view that eating BSE-infected meat is dangerous to humans", with pictures of tory ministers feeding burgers to their children. Strictly speaking, it wasn't a lie - there wasn't any conclusive evidence of danger. It was a misdirection because it delibarately gave the impression that scientists thought that eating BSE-infected meat was safe when in fact they had no way of knowing whether it was safe or dangerous, and didn't arrive at that conclusion it was dangerous until two years later when the first people started dying of NV-CJD. This sort of dishonesty just leads to the public not trusting politicians and also (unfairly) not trusting scientists either.

This typical politically-motivated pseudoscience - a failure of lying tory bastard politicians, not scientists.

And the only way to deal with BSE was indeed to slaughter any infected animals. What else do you think should have been done with them?

[DominicJ]

UE
Where are the millions of dead though?

And I made a whoopsie there, Foot and Mouth is the one with massive pointless slaughter.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE
Where are the millions of dead though?

Nobody predicted millions of dead. Nobody knew how many people would die because it was a new variant of a very rare and obscure disease. This sort of prion brain disease was only previously known from cannabilistic tribes who ate human brains, very little data was available and there was no guarantee that the new variant would act like the old ("Kuru"). Even when people first started dying, nobody knew what the average gestation time was either - it could have been 2 years or 20 years.

No scientist predicted millions of dead, or a timescale, because they didn't have enough information. It was always going to take many years before we found out the answers we now know.

And I made a whoopsie there, Foot and Mouth is the one with massive pointless slaughter.

Why do you think that was pointless? And do you think it was the fault of scientists, or politicians? Scientists just provide information. It's the politicians who act on it, and they have a track record of ignoring it if they don't like it (e.g. the government's drugs advistory panel).

[AndySir]

In my experience, militant rationalists have poor judgment when it comes to human nature...

I think this distinction was raised earlier in the thread, you mean empiricists or positivists rather than rationalists. Incredibly I have benefited from this bizarre discussion as I did not know that distinction, nor did I believe that anyone bar the faith crowd and some lunatic fringe used any other system of acquiring knowledge than the scientific method.

Curiously since then I have found a large swathe of social studies (esp. Economics) actively rejects empiricism and is still under the impression that you can delve to the truth of something by some construct of thought, or that cheap wordplay which I believe they call dialectics. This at least explains the complete uselessness of the social sciences and, indeed, politics.

So far I think empiricism is the only school of thought which has allowed us to advance our knowledge. Anyone who can provide an example of some piece of knowledge or awareness about the universe which has been derived from a sense of deep human motivation, common sense or even pure reason I invite to do so.

[Ludwig]

I think this distinction was raised earlier in the thread, you mean empiricists or positivists rather than rationalists. Incredibly I have benefited from this bizarre discussion as I did not know that distinction, nor did I believe that anyone bar the faith crowd and some lunatic fringe used any other system of acquiring knowledge than the scientific method.

Introspection, observation, intuition. If these words are meaningless to you, there's no discussion to be had. Some people, often very clever people, simply do not understand those things - I mean understand them as experiences as opposed to mere concepts.

Anyone who can provide an example of some piece of knowledge or awareness about the universe which has been derived from a sense of deep human motivation, common sense or even pure reason I invite to do so.

That statement shows just how much you are missing the point.