Scientific Dishonesty

[Papewaio]

There is little money and no glory in proving the work of others in any field.

Even larger, there is risk in disproving the established “consensus”. Not only for the researcher but also for the publisher. Personal attacks and ruining of reputation are more that order of the day than is questioning the data.

Data is often merely accepted without verification if a study or experiment renders results favourable to the established line of thinking.

Actually disproving theories is one of the key functions of science. People get paid and glory too for butchering the current scared cow in science.

[Fisherking]

Actually disproving theories is one of the key functions of science. People get paid and glory too for butchering the current scared cow in science.

That is what is supposed to happen, ideally. In practice, it never quite goes so smoothly. It usually has to wait until the beast is dead.
You had best be very careful who's cow you go after.
Politics and money had best be on your side.

[Pannonian]

That is what is supposed to happen, ideally. In practice, it never quite goes so smoothly. It usually has to wait until the beast is dead.
You had best be very careful who's cow you go after.
Politics and money had best be on your side.

A student in uniformitarianism, on a field trip to reinforce the doctrine, turned out to be a pioneering advocate of catastrophism. In his particular case at least, his initially derided theory is now the almost universally accepted explanation.