4 ms·

Such "science" should be illegal.

ceejayoz 8mo ago
What, specifically? Industry funded research? Results that disagree with the current consensus? Nutrition science entirely?
entropicdrifter 8mo ago
If propaganda was illegal, who would decide what was propaganda and what was simply argumentation made from positions of relative ignorance?
- pydry 8mo ago
  The courts could easily decide whether a message has been paid for or not.
  - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    All messages are paid for by someone.
stanford_labrat 8mo ago
the greatest travesty of modern science is that fraud is not illegal. in every other industry that i can imagine, purposely committing fraud has been made illegal. this is not the case in modern science, and in my opinion the primary driver of things like the replication crisis and the root of all the other problems plaguing academia at the moment.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  It's not legal, but intentional misconduct can be tough to prove. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/professor-charged-operating-multimillion-dollar-grant-fraud-scheme https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/professor-charged-op... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Reuben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Reuben > in every other industry that i can imagine Our own industry (tech) is rife with unpunished fraud.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > intentional misconduct can be tough to prove It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated. How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding? How many have been criminally investigated?
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding? But being wrong isn't a crime. Intentional fraud is. > It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated. And it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime I’d say the Ariely affair is reasonably suspicious.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        I don't disagree, but it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing. I am glad it takes more than mere suspicion for the government to go search my private writings and possessions.
        stanford_labrat 8mo ago
        my own institution launched an internal investigation into a professor who i know for a fact committed fraud and was "unable to prove intentional wrongdoing". academic institutions have taken the "this never happens because we are morally pure" approach which we all know is a load of baloney, they are perversely incentivized to never admit fraud. the witness and reportee who i am friends with was directly instructed by this professor to falsify data in a more positive light in order to impress grant funders. multiple people were in attendance in this meeting but even that was not enough to see any disciplinary action. duke also has a notorious reputation for being a fraud mill.

What, specifically? Industry funded research? Results that disagree with the current consensus? Nutrition science entirely?

entropicdrifter 8mo ago

If propaganda was illegal, who would decide what was propaganda and what was simply argumentation made from positions of relative ignorance?

pydry 8mo ago
The courts could easily decide whether a message has been paid for or not.
- NetMageSCW 8mo ago
  All messages are paid for by someone.

stanford_labrat 8mo ago

the greatest travesty of modern science is that fraud is not illegal. in every other industry that i can imagine, purposely committing fraud has been made illegal. this is not the case in modern science, and in my opinion the primary driver of things like the replication crisis and the root of all the other problems plaguing academia at the moment.

ceejayoz 8mo ago
It's not legal, but intentional misconduct can be tough to prove. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/professor-charged-operating-multimillion-dollar-grant-fraud-scheme https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/professor-charged-op... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Reuben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Reuben > in every other industry that i can imagine Our own industry (tech) is rife with unpunished fraud.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > intentional misconduct can be tough to prove It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated. How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding? How many have been criminally investigated?
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    > How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding? But being wrong isn't a crime. Intentional fraud is. > It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated. And it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime I’d say the Ariely affair is reasonably suspicious.
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        I don't disagree, but it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing. I am glad it takes more than mere suspicion for the government to go search my private writings and possessions.
        stanford_labrat 8mo ago
        my own institution launched an internal investigation into a professor who i know for a fact committed fraud and was "unable to prove intentional wrongdoing". academic institutions have taken the "this never happens because we are morally pure" approach which we all know is a load of baloney, they are perversely incentivized to never admit fraud. the witness and reportee who i am friends with was directly instructed by this professor to falsify data in a more positive light in order to impress grant funders. multiple people were in attendance in this meeting but even that was not enough to see any disciplinary action. duke also has a notorious reputation for being a fraud mill.