This is a good story of one social scientist's criminal academic research activities over the course of several years.
It's a disturbing but truthful account and has become a significant concern in academia of late.
Google "science fraud" and you will find much more information.

Here is Stapel's story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magaz ... d=all&_r=0

Thank goodness students turned him in, despite the concerns and fears they had for their future careers in science.

Here is a highlight from the article:

Stapel’s fraud may shine a spotlight on dishonesty in science, but scientific fraud is hardly new. The rogues’ gallery of academic liars and cheats features scientific celebrities who have enjoyed similar prominence. The once-celebrated South Korean stem-cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk stunned scientists in his field a few years ago after it was discovered that almost all of the work for which he was known was fraudulent. The prominent Harvard evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser resigned in 2011 during an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services that would end up determining that some of his papers contained fabricated data.

Every year, the Office of Research Integrity uncovers numerous instances­ of bad behavior by scientists, ranging from lying on grant applications to using fake images in publications. A blog called Retraction Watch publishes a steady stream of posts about papers being retracted by journals because of allegations or evidence of misconduct.

Manipulation of data to fit a hypothesis would be likely to happen in cosmology as well?

What else out there was accepted as scientific knowledge but is actually fraud that remains undetected?

ant wrote:What else out there was accepted as scientific knowledge but is actually fraud that remains undetected?

I'd like to see your answer to this ant. What is the most impactful theory that could be fraudulent? Could Einstein have been fraudulent? Hawking? Mendelev? Higgs?

What level of fraudulence could reasonably go undetected in the web of knowledge before neighboring knowledge shows inconsistency?

What other source of knowledge acquisition can police itself so well that students are the ones to catch their mentors not following proper method?

I'd like to see your answer to this ant. What is the most impactful theory that could be fraudulent? Could Einstein have been fraudulent? Hawking? Mendelev? Higgs?

All four, Interbane.

Happy?

ant wrote:All four, Interbane.

Happy?

Actually, yes. I agree with you too, my question wasn't that precise. There could have been at least some fraud in all four. Not to say there was, that's a different claim. But there could have been.

Here is a better question: Do you think the theories these men developed are therefore incorrect?

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:All four, Interbane.

Happy?

Actually, yes. I agree with you too, my question wasn't that precise. There could have been at least some fraud in all four. Not to say there was, that's a different claim. But there could have been.

Here is a better question: Do you think the theories these men developed are therefore incorrect?

Are you freaking serious?

You usually are much smarter than this.
Are you drunk??

Just curious;
How impactful has Hawing radiation been to you?

Does it help your time traveling aspirations any?

ant wrote:Are you freaking serious?

You usually are much smarter than this.
Are you drunk??

Your panties seem to be in a bunch, and I have no clue why. What are you upset about? What did I say that's dumb?

ant wrote:Just curious;
How impactful has Hawing radiation been to you?

Impactful to me? What does this have to do with me? You're making assumptions, and you don't even realize you're making them.

Ant, what in the world are you talking about?

Do you think the theories these men developed are therefore incorrect?

No. But that wasn't the intent of my post.

Is it highly likely deeper aspects of some that you've mentioned are subject to future revision - yes.

There could have been at least some fraud in all four. Not to say there was, that's a different claim. But there could have been.

For aspects that can be verified by observation it'd be harder to make a case they're based on fraudulent data (ie Einstein relativity as confirmed by the bending of light as observed by an eclipse).

In cosmology/QM it's the interpretation of data that's tricky. Reading particle smashing data is getting significantly more challenging as science digs deeper into nature. The Higgs, last I read, had not been ruled a confirmed discovery. Are scientists reading more into the data than is there? Might there be extra motivation/bias to make the data fit? As observation becomes more and more difficult, what happens to confirmation?

Then we hear the argument that it's the peer review process and academia itself that keeps scientists honest. And that's true to a certain extent. But when the system itself is motivated by profit, prestige, self interest, and bias, there's a problem:

http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015 ... tion-finds


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/healt ... d=all&_r=1


I think social sciences might be infected with fraud more than the hard sciences largely because falsification does not play a significant role as it should.

When you have a smart guy like Stapel, he knows exactly what to do - don't get too outrageous with your fraud; tweak the data just enough so that it's believable and not outrageous. If enough of your colleagues get caught up in the fame and notoriety, you'll get a consensus.

ant wrote:In cosmology/QM it's the interpretation of data that's tricky. Reading particle smashing data is getting significantly more challenging as science digs deeper into nature. The Higgs, last I read, had not been ruled a confirmed discovery. Are scientists reading more into the data than is there? Might there be extra motivation/bias to make the data fit? As observation becomes more and more difficult, what happens to confirmation?

To be fair, there is a difference between unintentionally biased interpretation, and intentional fraud. Intention matters. I'll agree that there is unintentional bias in all areas of science. But I would point out that the mechanisms in science are unparalleled in finding and minimizing this bias, getting close to the truth in spite of bias. If you disagree, show me any other human enterprise that compares.

My motive for defending science is that I see it as the most effective source of knowledge. Links to articles that show fraud come across not as a voice of reason amidst a crowd of science-worshippers, but as a voice of bias with the ulterior motive of pushing a different worldview. It's been pointed out many times by many members here that bias is recognized as universal. That hardly seems to be a point that needs to be constantly pursued, unless an ulterior motive is involved.

Your links are great to keep perspective, but you can't deny there's an elephant in the room.

To be fair, there is a difference between unintentionally biased interpretation, and intentional fraud. Intention matters. I'll agree that there is unintentional bias in all areas of science. But I would point out that the mechanisms in science are unparalleled in finding and minimizing this bias, getting close to the truth in spite of bias. If you disagree, show me any other human enterprise that compares.

Naturally, the worst case scenario is fraud.

In Stapel's case we have both fraud and bias.
Did you read it?

Stapel committed fraud numerous times. Scientists who wanted to attach their name to his did because they were biased to his results.
I feel bad for the students that worked under him.
The students that were brave enough to turn him in should be commended.

Once again you do not have to defend science here.. No one is saying we should throw away our telescopes and sacrifice a lamb.
Scientists of yesteryear who practiced discovery within a religious framework did not. No one need not do that today.
But perhaps they were not as tainted by prestige and money as some are today.