4 ms·

Richard Feynman on the subject: "researchers must avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and inve

Richard Feynman on the subject: "researchers must avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment. He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gave examples from advertising, politics, and psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science. Feynman cautioned,[3] 'We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.'" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually.

cryptonector 3y ago
> The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually. That's nice, but some frauds could potentially be very, very costly for society. There needs to be some deterrent as well.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  As well we are discovering from 40 years of neoclassical economics being a dominant force in policy.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  There needs to be heavy deterrent, but there also needs to be room for genuine failure. A lot of research, in both academic, public, and private domains, is worthless. When you spend months, or years on dead end research it can be a disaster for your career. The temptation to misrepresent or fabricate results is strong in those situations.
  - Eji1700 3y ago
    That’s the problem. Spending years to fail in research shouldn’t nuke your career. Finding out it’s not worth doing is as, if not more, important as finding the way to do it
- robwwilliams 3y ago
  Biomedical science is not self-correcting on any reasonable time scale. Ten to twenty year errors and distractions are common, and can have a huge direct and indirect cost. Alzheimer’s disease research and the APP mania is a case in point.
  - swyx 3y ago
    APP Mania?
    - dmoy 3y ago
      Amyloid precursor protein The original study on that from like 2006 turns out to be faked https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio...
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  Only if we can question experts. That seems to get you in trouble.
fud101 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Ok, but can you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You may not owe Richard Feynman better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
currymj 3y ago
"eventually" might be a while. these fairly obvious (once pointed out) photoshops were just sitting in the open in the top scientific journals in the world for 20 years...
hiq 3y ago
> The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually. The Stanford president mentioned is 63 years old and had a full academic career before being found out. It might even be that he remains financially well-off (I'm assuming his current role paid well for the last few years). For every big case such as this one, how many more commit fraud without being noticed? These quotes address what a scientist should do to do science, not what is practical to have a career in academia. The latter is more relevant in practice, because rigor and integrity don't get you tenure on their own.
- aredox 3y ago
  Exactly. He stiffled the career of many honest scientists by siphoning money and prestige that should rightfully have been directed elsewhere. The damage is done.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    This documentary series comes to mind [1], where in the end they go over the fallout and all the collective research years wasted and budding careers stunted (including people outright leaving research) because as students/postdocs trying to replicate the work of a scientist who was considered to be a potential nobel laureate, they couldn't possibly question the work they were trying to replicate. I feel this aspect of research fraud is even worse than the other established scientists who had their research impacted. In the mentioned case, the established scientists were essentially unharmed with a large body of other work to lean on and many having some form of job security, while the PhDs and postdocs suddenly found themselves unable to list most of their experience on their CV, despite the established scientists being the most qualified to verify the fraudster's work. Especially for someone in a leadership position at a university, I wonder how that doesn't eat them up inside. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64
- stonogo 3y ago
  The "The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually" is still relevant. The point is that the priniciples of collaborative peer review should keep the field on track, not that it will rain vengeance down on some miscreant. The papers being retracted is far more important, in the long run, than this person being punshed or not.
chinchilla2020 3y ago
Eventually you will be found out. Unfortunately that could be at 63 (like the Stanford president) after you have had an entire career and tens of millions in compensation. Other times it may be after your death. Sadly, this is a hard scam to catch and most top researchers may never get enough scrutiny to get caught.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > Eventually you will be found out. this just isn't true. you're assuming because you only see this every once in a while that it must be rare and policed effectively. it's actually the complete opposite - very common and not policed at all. the much more likely thing is that your paper with fabricated data will never be read. that's as good in the sense that no harm no foul but it still has the effect of padding out people's CVs that don't deserve it. but hey - don't hate the player hate the game is my motto.
  - chinchilla2020 3y ago
    Fair enough. I was just quoting the guy above me.

cryptonector 3y ago

> The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually. That's nice, but some frauds could potentially be very, very costly for society. There needs to be some deterrent as well.

hgomersall 3y ago
As well we are discovering from 40 years of neoclassical economics being a dominant force in policy.
zeroCalories 3y ago
There needs to be heavy deterrent, but there also needs to be room for genuine failure. A lot of research, in both academic, public, and private domains, is worthless. When you spend months, or years on dead end research it can be a disaster for your career. The temptation to misrepresent or fabricate results is strong in those situations.
- Eji1700 3y ago
  That’s the problem. Spending years to fail in research shouldn’t nuke your career. Finding out it’s not worth doing is as, if not more, important as finding the way to do it
robwwilliams 3y ago
Biomedical science is not self-correcting on any reasonable time scale. Ten to twenty year errors and distractions are common, and can have a huge direct and indirect cost. Alzheimer’s disease research and the APP mania is a case in point.
- swyx 3y ago
  APP Mania?
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Amyloid precursor protein The original study on that from like 2006 turns out to be faked https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio...
systemvoltage 3y ago
Only if we can question experts. That seems to get you in trouble.

fud101 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago
Ok, but can you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You may not owe Richard Feynman better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

currymj 3y ago

"eventually" might be a while. these fairly obvious (once pointed out) photoshops were just sitting in the open in the top scientific journals in the world for 20 years...

hiq 3y ago

> The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually. The Stanford president mentioned is 63 years old and had a full academic career before being found out. It might even be that he remains financially well-off (I'm assuming his current role paid well for the last few years). For every big case such as this one, how many more commit fraud without being noticed? These quotes address what a scientist should do to do science, not what is practical to have a career in academia. The latter is more relevant in practice, because rigor and integrity don't get you tenure on their own.

aredox 3y ago
Exactly. He stiffled the career of many honest scientists by siphoning money and prestige that should rightfully have been directed elsewhere. The damage is done.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  This documentary series comes to mind [1], where in the end they go over the fallout and all the collective research years wasted and budding careers stunted (including people outright leaving research) because as students/postdocs trying to replicate the work of a scientist who was considered to be a potential nobel laureate, they couldn't possibly question the work they were trying to replicate. I feel this aspect of research fraud is even worse than the other established scientists who had their research impacted. In the mentioned case, the established scientists were essentially unharmed with a large body of other work to lean on and many having some form of job security, while the PhDs and postdocs suddenly found themselves unable to list most of their experience on their CV, despite the established scientists being the most qualified to verify the fraudster's work. Especially for someone in a leadership position at a university, I wonder how that doesn't eat them up inside. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64
stonogo 3y ago
The "The frauds and bad scientists will be found out, eventually" is still relevant. The point is that the priniciples of collaborative peer review should keep the field on track, not that it will rain vengeance down on some miscreant. The papers being retracted is far more important, in the long run, than this person being punshed or not.

chinchilla2020 3y ago

Eventually you will be found out. Unfortunately that could be at 63 (like the Stanford president) after you have had an entire career and tens of millions in compensation. Other times it may be after your death. Sadly, this is a hard scam to catch and most top researchers may never get enough scrutiny to get caught.

mathisfun123 3y ago
> Eventually you will be found out. this just isn't true. you're assuming because you only see this every once in a while that it must be rare and policed effectively. it's actually the complete opposite - very common and not policed at all. the much more likely thing is that your paper with fabricated data will never be read. that's as good in the sense that no harm no foul but it still has the effect of padding out people's CVs that don't deserve it. but hey - don't hate the player hate the game is my motto.
- chinchilla2020 3y ago
  Fair enough. I was just quoting the guy above me.