3 ms·

>Academic fraud ranging from plagiarism to outright faking data should, more often than not, make it basically impossible for you to get any academic job whatso

>Academic fraud ranging from plagiarism to outright faking data should, more often than not, make it basically impossible for you to get any academic job whatsoever, in your field or others. That might actually be a perverse incentive. If you've already nuked your career with some fraud, you can't make it worse by extra fraud... why ever stop? People inclined to do this sort of thing, when faced with that deterrent just double down and commit even more fraud, they figure the best that can be hoped for is to do it so much and so perfectly that they're never discovered. The trouble is that the system for science worked well when there exists only some tiny number of scientists, but now we're a planet of 8 billion and where people tell their children they have to go to college and get a STEM degree. Hell, you can only become a scientist by producing new research, even if there's not much left to research in your field. And the only way to maintain that position as a scientist is "to publish or perish". We have finite avenues of research with an ever-growing population of scientists, bullshit is inevitable.

dullcrisp 1y ago
You stop because you can’t get a job?
pc86 1y ago
Even if "bullshit is inevitable" is true -- I don't think it is -- that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish people who make up data, who steal others' work, who steal grant money by using their fake data to justify future grants. "Well there's lots of people now" is not really a great justification. You become a low trust society by allowing trust to deteriorate. That happens in part because you choose not to punish people who violate that trust in the first place.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish people who make up data, I am not wishy-washy on punishment. A part of me that I do not deny nor suppress wants punishment for those who do wrong. But sometimes punishments are counter-productive. The easiest example is the death penalty for heinous, non-murder crimes. This incentivizes the rapist or child molester (or whatever) to kill the victim. You can't execute them twice, after all, so if they're already on the hook for a death penalty crime, murdering their victim also gets rid of a prime witness who could get them the death penalty by testifying, but without increasing the odds of the death penalty. "Career death penalty" here is like that. >"Well there's lots of people now" is not really a great justification. It wasn't meant to be a justification. It was an explanation of the problem, and (in part, at least) and attempt to show that things need to change if we want the fraud to go away. >You become a low trust society by allowing trust to deteriorate We've been a low trust society for a long time now. People need to start thinking about how to accomplish the long, slow process of changing a low trust society to a high trust one.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    >We've been a low trust society for a long time now. Although trust has been decreasing, the US remains a high-trust society compared to the global average.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > We've been a low trust society for a long time now. People need to start thinking about how to accomplish the long, slow process of changing a low trust society to a high trust one. The core problem is that most people define their self-worth by their employment, and no matter what, this is all going to crash hard due to automation. The generation currently in power is doing everything they can to deny and downplay what is about to happen, instead of helping our societies prepare. We're all being thrown into the rat race, it is being told to us verbally and in personal experience that there is no alternative than to become the top dog at all costs because that will be the only chance to survive once automation truly hits home. The result is that those who have the feeling they have failed the rat race and have no hope of catching up withdraw from the "societal contract" and just do whatever they want, at the expense of others if need be.
  - kevinventullo 1y ago
    In the case of academia, I’m fine with harsh punishment for people who fabricate data, even if it does incentivize them to be more brazen with their fabrications in the short term. Makes it easier to catch them! The fact is, we don’t want these people in academia at all. You want researchers who are naturally inclined not to fabricate data, not people who only play by the rules because they think they’re otherwise going to get caught.
nathan_compton 1y ago
My hunch is that these double down types won't be dissuaded by much of anything. I think fundamentally this kind of person has a risk taking personality and often feels they will get away with it.

dullcrisp 1y ago

You stop because you can’t get a job?

pc86 1y ago

Even if "bullshit is inevitable" is true -- I don't think it is -- that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish people who make up data, who steal others' work, who steal grant money by using their fake data to justify future grants. "Well there's lots of people now" is not really a great justification. You become a low trust society by allowing trust to deteriorate. That happens in part because you choose not to punish people who violate that trust in the first place.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>that doesn't mean we shouldn't punish people who make up data, I am not wishy-washy on punishment. A part of me that I do not deny nor suppress wants punishment for those who do wrong. But sometimes punishments are counter-productive. The easiest example is the death penalty for heinous, non-murder crimes. This incentivizes the rapist or child molester (or whatever) to kill the victim. You can't execute them twice, after all, so if they're already on the hook for a death penalty crime, murdering their victim also gets rid of a prime witness who could get them the death penalty by testifying, but without increasing the odds of the death penalty. "Career death penalty" here is like that. >"Well there's lots of people now" is not really a great justification. It wasn't meant to be a justification. It was an explanation of the problem, and (in part, at least) and attempt to show that things need to change if we want the fraud to go away. >You become a low trust society by allowing trust to deteriorate We've been a low trust society for a long time now. People need to start thinking about how to accomplish the long, slow process of changing a low trust society to a high trust one.
- hollerith 1y ago
  >We've been a low trust society for a long time now. Although trust has been decreasing, the US remains a high-trust society compared to the global average.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > We've been a low trust society for a long time now. People need to start thinking about how to accomplish the long, slow process of changing a low trust society to a high trust one. The core problem is that most people define their self-worth by their employment, and no matter what, this is all going to crash hard due to automation. The generation currently in power is doing everything they can to deny and downplay what is about to happen, instead of helping our societies prepare. We're all being thrown into the rat race, it is being told to us verbally and in personal experience that there is no alternative than to become the top dog at all costs because that will be the only chance to survive once automation truly hits home. The result is that those who have the feeling they have failed the rat race and have no hope of catching up withdraw from the "societal contract" and just do whatever they want, at the expense of others if need be.
- kevinventullo 1y ago
  In the case of academia, I’m fine with harsh punishment for people who fabricate data, even if it does incentivize them to be more brazen with their fabrications in the short term. Makes it easier to catch them! The fact is, we don’t want these people in academia at all. You want researchers who are naturally inclined not to fabricate data, not people who only play by the rules because they think they’re otherwise going to get caught.

nathan_compton 1y ago

My hunch is that these double down types won't be dissuaded by much of anything. I think fundamentally this kind of person has a risk taking personality and often feels they will get away with it.