4 ms·

This doesn't necessarily mean that the whole principle of unquestioning obedience when it comes to being asked to do immoral/unethical acts is false. Also, we'v

This doesn't necessarily mean that the whole principle of unquestioning obedience when it comes to being asked to do immoral/unethical acts is false. Also, we've probably all had bosses who were a bit too drunk with power. And unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), due to new ethics regulations, no such experiment could ever be conducted again- Except in real life, as happens every day in repressive countries around the world.

superduperer 3y ago
Yes it does.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  No it doesn't. Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur (aka Hitchens' Razor)
JacobThreeThree 3y ago
>Also, we've probably all had bosses who were a bit too drunk with power. Yeah, exactly. This type of real-world experiment is being done inside corporations and other bureaucratic fiefdoms. I think there's some truth to our order-following, obedient nature but people also seemed to put way too much stock into this particular study. It's just one study.
enasterosophes 3y ago
> This doesn't necessarily mean that the whole principle of unquestioning obedience when it comes to being asked to do immoral/unethical acts is false. The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed, and therefore cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions either way. The article is about replication issues in modern science, not about whether people in uniforms can be mean to people.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed Not "flawed", fraud. Which is a claim that the conclusion is false--and that the author knew it and published it anyway. That's what "fraud" means in this context. That's an extremely strong claim, which the article does not actually justify. Zimbardo's response, which others upthread have posted a link to, is, IMO, required reading to evaluate anything this article says.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    A scientific paper can be fraudulent without the author knowing that its conclusion is false if it has falsified data or otherwise is known to the author to misrepresent the extent to which the conclusion is supported.
taeric 3y ago
Fair, in that it provides null evidence. My understanding is that there have been several studies that showed that the results specifically did not replicate. Complicating things, this has been somewhat seen as something that is not "universal" and that the general upbringing of the test subjects matters a ton into how they will react to instructions.

superduperer 3y ago

Yes it does.

pmarreck 3y ago
No it doesn't. Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur (aka Hitchens' Razor)

JacobThreeThree 3y ago

>Also, we've probably all had bosses who were a bit too drunk with power. Yeah, exactly. This type of real-world experiment is being done inside corporations and other bureaucratic fiefdoms. I think there's some truth to our order-following, obedient nature but people also seemed to put way too much stock into this particular study. It's just one study.

enasterosophes 3y ago

> This doesn't necessarily mean that the whole principle of unquestioning obedience when it comes to being asked to do immoral/unethical acts is false. The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed, and therefore cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions either way. The article is about replication issues in modern science, not about whether people in uniforms can be mean to people.

pdonis 3y ago
> The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed Not "flawed", fraud. Which is a claim that the conclusion is false--and that the author knew it and published it anyway. That's what "fraud" means in this context. That's an extremely strong claim, which the article does not actually justify. Zimbardo's response, which others upthread have posted a link to, is, IMO, required reading to evaluate anything this article says.
- thfuran 3y ago
  A scientific paper can be fraudulent without the author knowing that its conclusion is false if it has falsified data or otherwise is known to the author to misrepresent the extent to which the conclusion is supported.

taeric 3y ago

Fair, in that it provides null evidence. My understanding is that there have been several studies that showed that the results specifically did not replicate. Complicating things, this has been somewhat seen as something that is not "universal" and that the general upbringing of the test subjects matters a ton into how they will react to instructions.