3 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. The art
by 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 agoA 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.