3 ms·

When an organization "funds" research that comes to a conclusion said organization knows to be false, that is fraud, outright. We should not accept fraud as "pa

When an organization "funds" research that comes to a conclusion said organization knows to be false, that is fraud, outright. We should not accept fraud as "par for the course" or "we should expect no better." Actively attempting to defraud customers, employees, or government should be a crime.

tlb 10y ago
How could they know something to be false, when their own scientists said it was true? They should have known it was bullshit (in Frankfurt's technical sense [0]), though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit: "As such, bullshit can be neither true nor false; hence, the bullshitter is someone whose principal aim—when uttering or publishing bullshit—is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed"
- dluan 10y ago
  Maybe when the stakes go up, it's harder to call something out as bullshit. One $10M study saying the NFL is safe for mental health will outweigh 100 $10k studies too scared to state the opposite. tbh, the NFL was smart to lump so much money as a promise to the NIH, pitting all of the institutes against one lab at BU.
woodman 10y ago
That doesn't seem like a very well thought out way of defending a logical endeavor like scientific research. I don't know how you plan to learn what an "organization knows", but lets pretend that is economically feasible - what do you think the logical move is for these bad actors? Well there would be a pretty strong incentive to never "know" anything, so that wouldn't be very good. As it is now, if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long, and neither will those with their names on the papers. Also, fraud is already a crime - but again I don't know how you plan on demonstrating the "attempting" part.
- ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
  "if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long" that is not necessarily true.
  - woodman 10y ago
    Ok, I can be more explicit: If the funded research is bad -- and it is an area of interest (political, social, industrial, etc) -- then it won't survive for long. So you are correct, if Philip Morris funded bad research relating to the mating habits of fruit flies in a zero gravity environment - it is unlikely to be challenged in a timely manner... but as nobody cares, it doesn't matter.
    - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
      I'd also argue that it is possible for cultural bias and injected money to suppress truth over longer time scales - generations.

tlb 10y ago

How could they know something to be false, when their own scientists said it was true? They should have known it was bullshit (in Frankfurt's technical sense [0]), though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit: "As such, bullshit can be neither true nor false; hence, the bullshitter is someone whose principal aim—when uttering or publishing bullshit—is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed"

dluan 10y ago
Maybe when the stakes go up, it's harder to call something out as bullshit. One $10M study saying the NFL is safe for mental health will outweigh 100 $10k studies too scared to state the opposite. tbh, the NFL was smart to lump so much money as a promise to the NIH, pitting all of the institutes against one lab at BU.

woodman 10y ago

That doesn't seem like a very well thought out way of defending a logical endeavor like scientific research. I don't know how you plan to learn what an "organization knows", but lets pretend that is economically feasible - what do you think the logical move is for these bad actors? Well there would be a pretty strong incentive to never "know" anything, so that wouldn't be very good. As it is now, if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long, and neither will those with their names on the papers. Also, fraud is already a crime - but again I don't know how you plan on demonstrating the "attempting" part.

ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
"if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long" that is not necessarily true.
- woodman 10y ago
  Ok, I can be more explicit: If the funded research is bad -- and it is an area of interest (political, social, industrial, etc) -- then it won't survive for long. So you are correct, if Philip Morris funded bad research relating to the mating habits of fruit flies in a zero gravity environment - it is unlikely to be challenged in a timely manner... but as nobody cares, it doesn't matter.
  - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
    I'd also argue that it is possible for cultural bias and injected money to suppress truth over longer time scales - generations.