4 ms·

> Ignoring ethical standards compromises the validity of any evidence and resulting claims... Unfortunately this logic is flawed. Ethical standards are a movin

by lixtra 8y ago

> Ignoring ethical standards compromises the validity of any evidence and resulting claims... Unfortunately this logic is flawed. Ethical standards are a moving target not the same as scientific standards (also a moving target). For the validity of research I would be only interested in how far scientific standards are met. To give a current example: a good chunk of scientists think that science should be open access - an ethical standard. They still have no general doubt in the validity of payed journals.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
There is plenty of doubt about the validity of paid journals. That's part of why people want open access. Paid journals distort research because they need to sell exciting results. Negative results and failed replications don't make it into the literature, leading to an over-representation of incorrect positive results.
woodruffw 8y ago
As 'daveFNbuck points out, believing in open access (as I do) does entail an amount of skepticism towards the current journal system -- I do think that the current incentive structure behind journal publishing threatens (if not totally compromises) the results within. Ethical standards are indeed a moving target, and it's the job of applied ethics to determine that target at any given point. This is exactly how it should be -- it gives prior research ethical historicity that we can revisit and evaluate to determine whether our priors are as sound as we think they are.
- lixtra 8y ago
  Open access was just one example. While I'm all in all very happy with the current ethical standards, it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time (i.e. [1]) and it's easy to imagine botched ethics that are diametrical to scientific principles. I stand firm that not following some ethical standard does not invalidate scientific results and consequently that OPs "dark journals" are very well possible (obviously not desirable). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
  - woodruffw 8y ago
    > it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time This misses the point: Gallileo's persecution was (and is) morally impermissible, even if the powers at the time claimed otherwise. "Transgressing the ethical standards of the time" isn't at all contentious, because the ethical standards were clearly wrong. By contrast, there's no clear sense in which our current ethical standards (in the domain of scientific research) are actually wrong -- I might (and happen to) disagree with their metaethical foundations, but their actual practice is perfectly satisfactory: harm reduction, respect for fundamental rights, consideration against exploitative forces, &c. It's perfectly consistent (and correct) to say that following some misguided ethical standard will not invalidate scientific findings. What invalidates those findings is failing to obey our current, very good ethical standards.

by lixtra 8y ago

daveFNbuck 8y ago

There is plenty of doubt about the validity of paid journals. That's part of why people want open access. Paid journals distort research because they need to sell exciting results. Negative results and failed replications don't make it into the literature, leading to an over-representation of incorrect positive results.

woodruffw 8y ago

As 'daveFNbuck points out, believing in open access (as I do) does entail an amount of skepticism towards the current journal system -- I do think that the current incentive structure behind journal publishing threatens (if not totally compromises) the results within. Ethical standards are indeed a moving target, and it's the job of applied ethics to determine that target at any given point. This is exactly how it should be -- it gives prior research ethical historicity that we can revisit and evaluate to determine whether our priors are as sound as we think they are.

lixtra 8y ago
Open access was just one example. While I'm all in all very happy with the current ethical standards, it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time (i.e. [1]) and it's easy to imagine botched ethics that are diametrical to scientific principles. I stand firm that not following some ethical standard does not invalidate scientific results and consequently that OPs "dark journals" are very well possible (obviously not desirable). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
- woodruffw 8y ago
  > it's worth to point out that in the past science was significantly advanced by transgressing the ethical standards of the time This misses the point: Gallileo's persecution was (and is) morally impermissible, even if the powers at the time claimed otherwise. "Transgressing the ethical standards of the time" isn't at all contentious, because the ethical standards were clearly wrong. By contrast, there's no clear sense in which our current ethical standards (in the domain of scientific research) are actually wrong -- I might (and happen to) disagree with their metaethical foundations, but their actual practice is perfectly satisfactory: harm reduction, respect for fundamental rights, consideration against exploitative forces, &c. It's perfectly consistent (and correct) to say that following some misguided ethical standard will not invalidate scientific findings. What invalidates those findings is failing to obey our current, very good ethical standards.