Scientific Dishonesty

[Fisherking]

These are very gross generalizations. I would say they are applicable to nonsense fields (I don't mean to offend anyone, but that's how I see it and I like to speak plainly) like psychology or social "sciences". In fields like physics, chemistry or engineering and technology development (I see technology development as much of a science as fundamental research), a peer-reviewed and reputable journal will never accept a letter dealing with empirical data unless the source of the data is specified and it is an equally reputable one. A large part of the scientific community dedicates their careers to making sure that the numbers other use in their research are correct.

When somebody does forge data they are usually caught since many independent groups must reproduce a result before it is accepted by the community. As in the famous Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion experiment, or Ninov's discovery of superheavy elements, dishonest scientists are ostracized by the community and must pretty much quit and do something else with their lives.

In most every field there are orthodoxies which hold researchers back. These are not always in the soft sciences.

Pharmaceuticals are chemistry and we know money bias plays a role.

Conversely, many developments and discoveries receive short shrift simply because the don’t match consensus. Consensus is not science.

One of you examples “cold fusion” was declared bunk by consensus rather than experimentation, and anyone doing further work in the field is shut down, at least in the west. Yet there are enough experiments that show enough promise that it would seem further investigations are worthy.

Then again, we have the politically charged Consensus on global warming in climatology. We find deliberate manipulation of data presented to prove an agenda. Those pointing out errors in methodology are decried as shills or worse. Even at best we are left with computer modelling that can’t replicate the past, is at variance with current data but we are to believe it will predict the future.

There is a lack of openminded exploration and a number of institutional biases at play. It is in most fields. It is a human endeavour and will never be perfect.

It, to me, is better to approach all with a degree of openminded scepticism as with anything else.