5 ms·

"Conclusion: 99.99% of us are honest but the dishonest 0.01% can cause serious, repeated damage." Precisely how is this ratio determined? Given the unreproduc

"Conclusion: 99.99% of us are honest but the dishonest 0.01% can cause serious, repeated damage." Precisely how is this ratio determined? Given the unreproducable results and plagiarism that we've learned about in recent times I believe there is a lot more fraud than can be accounted for by "the dishonest 0.01%."

TeMPOraL 6y ago
I think the same. I mean, it's widely known that academic incentives are completely broken all across the board. And yet somehow those broken incentives are not producing dishonest research at scale? Doesn't add up, really.
bena 6y ago
You start by thinking: "I feel as if I'm being honest and my intentions are pure, so for the sake of being able to continue doing this, I need to believe that the vast majority are also honest with pure intentions, but I do recognize just how messed up it is and how very easy it would be to abuse." Then you pick numbers that justify your position. Then you get your friends to vouch for your numbers that they helped you come to even though they can't admit that because then they can't independently vouch for them.
effie 6y ago
Maybe the absolutely worst are the 0.01% (or more likely, 1%). But the problem is more broad. There are different ways of corruption, making up word salads and fake results on one hand, or engaging in low effort repetitions with little to no questioning of the prevalent methodologies/theories of du jour, to fixing language in grant proposals/reports to get more money. When all these add up, I think 0.01% is likely the portion of the completely honest hard-working people in academia.
- wegs 6y ago
  It's more than 0.01% honest/hard-working people. You have: * Grad students who will never make tenure. * Lifelong adjuncts / post-docs who are staying there because they won't play the game. * Older faculty from a different era. * Etc. It's enough that at this point, I find all research from my alma mater suspect unless I've personally reviewed it or know the PI personally. But there's a pretty large honest portion too.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I think the same. I mean, it's widely known that academic incentives are completely broken all across the board. And yet somehow those broken incentives are not producing dishonest research at scale? Doesn't add up, really.

bena 6y ago

You start by thinking: "I feel as if I'm being honest and my intentions are pure, so for the sake of being able to continue doing this, I need to believe that the vast majority are also honest with pure intentions, but I do recognize just how messed up it is and how very easy it would be to abuse." Then you pick numbers that justify your position. Then you get your friends to vouch for your numbers that they helped you come to even though they can't admit that because then they can't independently vouch for them.

effie 6y ago

Maybe the absolutely worst are the 0.01% (or more likely, 1%). But the problem is more broad. There are different ways of corruption, making up word salads and fake results on one hand, or engaging in low effort repetitions with little to no questioning of the prevalent methodologies/theories of du jour, to fixing language in grant proposals/reports to get more money. When all these add up, I think 0.01% is likely the portion of the completely honest hard-working people in academia.

wegs 6y ago
It's more than 0.01% honest/hard-working people. You have: * Grad students who will never make tenure. * Lifelong adjuncts / post-docs who are staying there because they won't play the game. * Older faculty from a different era. * Etc. It's enough that at this point, I find all research from my alma mater suspect unless I've personally reviewed it or know the PI personally. But there's a pretty large honest portion too.