Talk:Scientific misconduct: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Tribe |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
This is a clean slate article. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 21:27, 27 January 2007 (CST) | This is a clean slate article. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 21:27, 27 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:Rough attemp at an introduction: | |||
:'''Scientific misconduct''' is an accusation levelled at members of the scientific community who have, knowingly or otherwise, undertaken research, or produced results in such a way that ethical questions are raised. Practitioners perceived as being pseudoscientists may also be implicated with scientific misconduct, although the term pseudoscience is often extended to cover areas of alternative medicine and the paranormal whose proponents do not necessarily consider themselves scientists or use the trappings of science. --[[User:Christian Steinbach|Christian Steinbach]] 23:11, 27 January 2007 (CST) | |||
==Frankness about contrary evidence== | |||
Einstein quote | |||
==Falsification== | ==Falsification== | ||
[[Karl Popper]] | [[Karl Popper]] | ||
:For me, failure to adhere to Popper’s norms does not imply scientific misconduct. That is not to say I believe ''nobody'' has ever been charged with misconduct for this reason; although even that would surprise me slightly. I do think that mentioning him opens up a can of worms. Can we treat one philosophy of science alone without dragging in the larger debate over which philosopher of science is more correct? Recently I read Kuhn vs. Popper by Steve Fuller who feels that Kuhn comes out as a clear winner (in a popularity contest anyway), in which case we could say that scientists operating outside a healthy paradigm are guilty of misconduct. And so on for other philosophers of science past or present. My suggestion would be either to say something more general about upholding philosophical norms, or perhaps just leave out the discussion altogether. --[[User:Christian Steinbach|Christian Steinbach]] 23:37, 27 January 2007 (CST) | |||
==Peer review process== | ==Peer review process== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 22: | ||
MMR vaccine | MMR vaccine | ||
Recent Stem cell - human cloning fraud | |||
==Journal ethics== | ==Journal ethics== | ||
Latest revision as of 13:18, 14 November 2007
This is a clean slate article. David Tribe 21:27, 27 January 2007 (CST)
- Rough attemp at an introduction:
- Scientific misconduct is an accusation levelled at members of the scientific community who have, knowingly or otherwise, undertaken research, or produced results in such a way that ethical questions are raised. Practitioners perceived as being pseudoscientists may also be implicated with scientific misconduct, although the term pseudoscience is often extended to cover areas of alternative medicine and the paranormal whose proponents do not necessarily consider themselves scientists or use the trappings of science. --Christian Steinbach 23:11, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Frankness about contrary evidence
Einstein quote
Falsification
- For me, failure to adhere to Popper’s norms does not imply scientific misconduct. That is not to say I believe nobody has ever been charged with misconduct for this reason; although even that would surprise me slightly. I do think that mentioning him opens up a can of worms. Can we treat one philosophy of science alone without dragging in the larger debate over which philosopher of science is more correct? Recently I read Kuhn vs. Popper by Steve Fuller who feels that Kuhn comes out as a clear winner (in a popularity contest anyway), in which case we could say that scientists operating outside a healthy paradigm are guilty of misconduct. And so on for other philosophers of science past or present. My suggestion would be either to say something more general about upholding philosophical norms, or perhaps just leave out the discussion altogether. --Christian Steinbach 23:37, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Peer review process
Examples to use
The David Baltimore case
MMR vaccine
Recent Stem cell - human cloning fraud