4 ms·

Much of this was told to me in confidence (via their lab-mates, etc) I’m not going to betray their trust.

slg 5y ago
Your first comment was effectively "Everyone knows this person is a fraud and no one is willing to stand up and put a stop to it". Your second comment was effectively "Well I don't know they are a fraud and I'm not going to be the one who upsets people by trying to put a stop to it". I don't say this as a criticism of you. I say this a defense of the people you are criticizing. Stopping people like this takes a lot of work and often some personal risk. Most of us aren't willing to do it despite us pretending otherwise.
- Infernal 5y ago
  >Stopping people like this takes a lot of work and often some personal risk. I don't recall where I first heard it, but the principle that it takes 10x the amount of energy to refute bullshit as it does to generate it certainly seems to apply in this case.
  - acidburnNSA 5y ago
    Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit%20asymmetry%20principle https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit%20a...
    - WaitWaitWha 5y ago
      It is easier to fool people then to convince them they have been fooled - Mark Twain
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    And often it doesn't actually matter. How many times have you seen people who use citations and references get harassed by some bloviating hoard? Reality is almost irrelevant in the face of ideology, dogma, and all the other forces that keep counterintuitive or uncomfortable reality out.
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    A post-doc of a collaborator of a professor of mine was once found to have doctored data. The professor and her collabs only found out when they looked at the images and found out that there were sections that seemed to have been copy/pasted. Getting the papers retracted was a gruelling process that (iirc) took over 3 years.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  The people in charge were given evidence, face much less risk, and it's their job to put a stop to it. They deserve the criticism.
  - slg 5y ago
    >The people in charge were given evidence, face much less risk, and it's their job to put a stop to it. That is an awfully authoritative statement to make based off what OP shared. But either way, this has been proven time and time again whether we are talking about simple corruption like OP mentioned or more serious forms of injustice. People will judge themselves based off motivations and others based off actions. We can excuse ourselves because of the personal inconvenience that acting will cause us. But other people don't get that luxury. They get criticized purely based off that lack of action because if we were in their situation surely we would do the right thing. Being honest about this is important step to actually fixing the system because we need to identify the motivations which lead to the lack of action in order to remove them and encourage action. Simply vilifying people for not acting accomplishes nothing.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > That is an awfully authoritative statement to make based off what OP shared. Which part do you disagree with? Maybe the 'much' on much less risk? 'given evidence' is true unless OP made op the story. (And even if OP made up the story then we're judging fictional people and the judgements are still valid.) I think 'less risk' goes part and parcel with being administration rather than someone lower rank reporting a problem. And it seems clear to me that it's their job. So, criticism. Which is not a particularly harsh outcome. And doesn't necessarily mean they made the wrong decision, but them providing a justification would be a good start. Inaction is often excusable when it's not your job. It's always important to look at motivations, but vilification can also be appropriate when there's dereliction. Sometimes there are no significant motivations leading to lack of action, there's just apathy and people that shouldn't have been hired to the position.
      - slg 5y ago
newbie789 5y ago
This website is pretty easy to post on anonymously. It takes five seconds to make a throwaway and another three to post a name. While I agree that there are frauds out there in academia and elsewhere, I have no reason to believe that you’re not yourself some sort of fraud. You’ve essentially posted “I have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraud in which somebody claimed to have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraudulent conclusion] but can’t back it up] but won’t back it up” Your overall point is… what? Fraud of perpetuated by cowardice? Self interest? An overall sense of apathy towards the truth? Your comment could be construed as any of those. There are people that love to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt without having to rely on being truthful. People that are intentionally misleading with the sole intent of leveraging people’s biases and emotions to confirm folks notions and whip people up into an artificially-created frenzy make statements yours. Serious questions: 1. Do you actually give a shit about this big fraud you’ve brought up but not revealed? And 2. Why did you post?
- lettergram 5y ago
  > 1. Do you actually give a shit about this big fraud you’ve brought up but not revealed? To expose it directly here would likely have little effect generally, but would have an outsized effect personally (damaging trust). If it did have an impact it would likely expose those involved (many careers). I am not in the command chain, I have seen the evidence and it's overwhelming. But I'm not in a position to enact the requisite change. That said, I don't actually give a shit about this particular case. It's widespread, insanely wide spread. Most studies / work cannot be replicated. > 2. Why did you post? As an anecdote to highlight something that I've seen. I also linked to several other informational pieces with public accounts (so don't trust mine, fine -- trust theirs).
  - newbie789 5y ago
    > To expose it directly here would likely have little effect generally, but would have an outsized effect personally (damaging trust). If it did have an impact it would likely expose those involved (many careers). I am not in the command chain, I have seen the evidence and it's overwhelming. But I'm not in a position to enact the requisite change. Sorry, I don’t mean to pick at you but… what? If you were to anonymously post the name of an academic fraud, you personally would necessarily be found out, and it would ruin multiple careers? The powers that be know who you are, know of the fraud and its nature and those involved? You’ve been privy to this big juicy secret that’s shared by many, but if its content were to be revealed, you would certainly be the one pointed out? Are you the only person that could reasonably know about and publicly object to this fraud? If so, is it a necessary function of your social or professional life to cover up this fraud? If so, I’ll go back to “why did you post?” (“Sharing anecdotes” isn’t really an answer to “Why did you share this anecdote?”)

slg 5y ago

Your first comment was effectively "Everyone knows this person is a fraud and no one is willing to stand up and put a stop to it". Your second comment was effectively "Well I don't know they are a fraud and I'm not going to be the one who upsets people by trying to put a stop to it". I don't say this as a criticism of you. I say this a defense of the people you are criticizing. Stopping people like this takes a lot of work and often some personal risk. Most of us aren't willing to do it despite us pretending otherwise.

Infernal 5y ago
>Stopping people like this takes a lot of work and often some personal risk. I don't recall where I first heard it, but the principle that it takes 10x the amount of energy to refute bullshit as it does to generate it certainly seems to apply in this case.
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit%20asymmetry%20principle https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit%20a...
  - WaitWaitWha 5y ago
    It is easier to fool people then to convince them they have been fooled - Mark Twain
- kristopolous 5y ago
  And often it doesn't actually matter. How many times have you seen people who use citations and references get harassed by some bloviating hoard? Reality is almost irrelevant in the face of ideology, dogma, and all the other forces that keep counterintuitive or uncomfortable reality out.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  A post-doc of a collaborator of a professor of mine was once found to have doctored data. The professor and her collabs only found out when they looked at the images and found out that there were sections that seemed to have been copy/pasted. Getting the papers retracted was a gruelling process that (iirc) took over 3 years.
Dylan16807 5y ago
The people in charge were given evidence, face much less risk, and it's their job to put a stop to it. They deserve the criticism.
- slg 5y ago
  >The people in charge were given evidence, face much less risk, and it's their job to put a stop to it. That is an awfully authoritative statement to make based off what OP shared. But either way, this has been proven time and time again whether we are talking about simple corruption like OP mentioned or more serious forms of injustice. People will judge themselves based off motivations and others based off actions. We can excuse ourselves because of the personal inconvenience that acting will cause us. But other people don't get that luxury. They get criticized purely based off that lack of action because if we were in their situation surely we would do the right thing. Being honest about this is important step to actually fixing the system because we need to identify the motivations which lead to the lack of action in order to remove them and encourage action. Simply vilifying people for not acting accomplishes nothing.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > That is an awfully authoritative statement to make based off what OP shared. Which part do you disagree with? Maybe the 'much' on much less risk? 'given evidence' is true unless OP made op the story. (And even if OP made up the story then we're judging fictional people and the judgements are still valid.) I think 'less risk' goes part and parcel with being administration rather than someone lower rank reporting a problem. And it seems clear to me that it's their job. So, criticism. Which is not a particularly harsh outcome. And doesn't necessarily mean they made the wrong decision, but them providing a justification would be a good start. Inaction is often excusable when it's not your job. It's always important to look at motivations, but vilification can also be appropriate when there's dereliction. Sometimes there are no significant motivations leading to lack of action, there's just apathy and people that shouldn't have been hired to the position.
    - slg 5y ago

newbie789 5y ago

This website is pretty easy to post on anonymously. It takes five seconds to make a throwaway and another three to post a name. While I agree that there are frauds out there in academia and elsewhere, I have no reason to believe that you’re not yourself some sort of fraud. You’ve essentially posted “I have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraud in which somebody claimed to have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraudulent conclusion] but can’t back it up] but won’t back it up” Your overall point is… what? Fraud of perpetuated by cowardice? Self interest? An overall sense of apathy towards the truth? Your comment could be construed as any of those. There are people that love to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt without having to rely on being truthful. People that are intentionally misleading with the sole intent of leveraging people’s biases and emotions to confirm folks notions and whip people up into an artificially-created frenzy make statements yours. Serious questions: 1. Do you actually give a shit about this big fraud you’ve brought up but not revealed? And 2. Why did you post?

lettergram 5y ago
> 1. Do you actually give a shit about this big fraud you’ve brought up but not revealed? To expose it directly here would likely have little effect generally, but would have an outsized effect personally (damaging trust). If it did have an impact it would likely expose those involved (many careers). I am not in the command chain, I have seen the evidence and it's overwhelming. But I'm not in a position to enact the requisite change. That said, I don't actually give a shit about this particular case. It's widespread, insanely wide spread. Most studies / work cannot be replicated. > 2. Why did you post? As an anecdote to highlight something that I've seen. I also linked to several other informational pieces with public accounts (so don't trust mine, fine -- trust theirs).
- newbie789 5y ago
  > To expose it directly here would likely have little effect generally, but would have an outsized effect personally (damaging trust). If it did have an impact it would likely expose those involved (many careers). I am not in the command chain, I have seen the evidence and it's overwhelming. But I'm not in a position to enact the requisite change. Sorry, I don’t mean to pick at you but… what? If you were to anonymously post the name of an academic fraud, you personally would necessarily be found out, and it would ruin multiple careers? The powers that be know who you are, know of the fraud and its nature and those involved? You’ve been privy to this big juicy secret that’s shared by many, but if its content were to be revealed, you would certainly be the one pointed out? Are you the only person that could reasonably know about and publicly object to this fraud? If so, is it a necessary function of your social or professional life to cover up this fraud? If so, I’ll go back to “why did you post?” (“Sharing anecdotes” isn’t really an answer to “Why did you share this anecdote?”)