ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Modern science is fraud

Logic always dictated that the focus on credentialism in science was eventually going to lead to a considerable amount of fraud, specifically fraudulent credentials.  And, unsurprisingly, the rot goes right to the very top of academic science:
“The 233-year old American Academy of Arts and Sciences has announced that its longtime President and Chief Executive, Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, has agreed to resign effective at the end of this month following an investigation of charges of resume embellishment and other misconduct. Berlowitz falsely claimed to have received a doctorate from New York University, and has also been criticized for her behavior towards scholars and subordinates, and for her compensation package ($598,000 for 2012) relative to the size of the non-profit organization she led."
Meanwhile, many scientists are still publicly wringing their hands over the potential damage to science that could be caused by local school districts placing information stickers on textbooks.  Never mind the fact that increasing numbers of people around the world have no respect for either science or scientists primarily due to the fact that science is now openly politicized and so many scientists have been exposed as frauds of one sort or another.

The Left has long believed it could bolster its appeal and popular authority by coopting science.  It has done so since Karl Marx claimed that his socialism was "scientific".  And it worked, for a time, particularly in the 20th century when the three great frauds of science, Freud, Keynes, and Marx, were respected as giants of their quasi-scientific disciplines.

But time exposes all frauds.  The fact that scientists so readily, and so enthusiastically, sold out the scientific method in favor of the politicized consensus, means that the general public quite rightly casts a dubious eye on the legitimacy of "science" as it now exists.  Daniel Dennett was absolutely wrong.  We cannot trust biologists, or psychologists, or economists, or climatologists, or social scientists, just because physicists get extremely accurate results.

Labels:

51 Comments:

Blogger Heuristics July 28, 2013 5:36 AM  

If you find this kind of thing interesting I would recommend this blog: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

Blogger liam barrett July 28, 2013 5:41 AM  

Freud was a fraud? On what grounds.. what am i missing here?

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2013 6:19 AM  

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences? Oh dear! Now who's going to present the May Sarton Award For Exceptional Lesbian Poetry???




Anonymous justoutforawalk July 28, 2013 6:35 AM  

It probably will not interest you in the slightest, but whenever I feel a bit blue about the state of the world, I stop by your blog, and it never fails to reinstate my hope for the future. Thank you for this and many other excellent posts.

Anonymous demonl July 28, 2013 6:41 AM  

It will just take a period of famine + hiccup in foodstamps and there will be a great upheaval followed potentially by some renewal in patches.

Anonymous Rantor July 28, 2013 6:48 AM  

@Liam Barrett, description of one book critical of Freud by a Dr Torrey:

Torrey begins by discussing Freud's practice as a psychoanalyst. Freud was very influenced by occult ideas, including numerology as well as the idea of his fellow physician Wilhelm Fliess that the nose is linked to human sexuality. This led Freud to operate on the nose of many patients, leading often to permanent disfiguration. In addition, Freud advocated the use of cocaine as a panacea for all physical and mental ills and took the drug heavily himself. Freud's system also was very denigrating towards women viewing the mother as the source of all mental problems and personal unhappiness. Nevertheless, because Freud openly discussed sex as the source of mental problems he became a favorite among those who advocated sexual liberation during the Victorian era. Prime among these figures was the anarchist Emma Goldman who became enthralled by Freudianism and advocated for birth control and sexual freedom.

He also goes on about Freudian ideas about criminality and removing personal responsibility and blaming the crime on the perpetrators childhood or some such... lots of crticism from Torrey. He's not the only one.

Anonymous J July 28, 2013 7:05 AM  

Berlowitz's actual degrees - and her supposed doctorates - were in ENGLISH, not science.* What this shows is not the corruption of science, but the corruption of institutions that put (unqualified, useless, Leftist) women in charge who have degrees in subjects that are nonsense even when they actually earned them.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is not just a scientific society - it is an honorary society that honors non-scientists (one of its members is, um, the noted scientist MLK Jr). From wiki:


From the beginning, the membership, nominated and elected by peers, has included not only scientists and scholars but also writers and artists as well as representatives from the full range of professions and public life.

Class III – Social Sciences
Section 1. Social and Developmental Psychology and Education
Section 2. Economics
Section 3. Political Science, International Relations, and Public Policy
Section 4. Law (including the Practice of Law)
Section 5. Archaeology, Anthropology, Sociology, Geography and Demography

Class IV – Arts and Humanities
Section 1. Philosophy and Religious Studies
Section 2. History
Section 3. Literary Criticism (including Philology)
Section 4. Literature (Fiction, Poetry, Short Stories, Nonfiction, Playwriting, Screenwriting)
Section 5. Visual Arts and Performing Arts

Class V – Public affairs, business, and administration
Section 1. Public Affairs, Journalism, and Communications
Section 2. Business, Corporate and Philanthropic Leadership
Section 3. Educational, Scientific, Cultural and Philanthropic Administration

* See her resume:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/specials/berlowitz_documents

Blogger liam barrett July 28, 2013 7:09 AM  

Even though i'd actually be inclined to agree with some of those points, after doing a bit of research I see the fallacy in calling his work science.

Blogger tz July 28, 2013 7:12 AM  

One need only to look back at Lysenko in the USSR, or the Nazi scientists proving aryans were descended from the greek city states, as well as developing RU486, oops same company, but it was called Farbin thatmdeveloped Zyklon-B.

And I'm starting tomwonder about psycists.

Truth may need defense but should have no fear about it.

Politicized scientists remind me of the Shakespeare line, "Tht Lady doth protest too much". They respond with ad hominem attacks, complaints about separation of church ans state, and anything but the facts and data.

Anonymous The Great Martini July 28, 2013 7:18 AM  

It's important to distinguish between social and natural sciences, though natural science has it's share of fraud and even fraudulent schools that gain some stature from time to time. I would say the difference is in the level of controversy. Freud, Keynes and Marx were all social scientists, though Keynes dabbled in mathematics. Since they contain the human element, the social sciences are always going to be more in flux and controversial than most natural sciences like physics or chemistry. Biology is one of those weird crossover disciplines, since it is part chemistry and partly about us since we are biological beings. Biology is controversial like the social sciences are controversial, even though it's nominally a natural science.

Just to bring home the idea, consider how odd it would sound to say that modern organic chemistry is a fraud.

Anonymous Steve July 28, 2013 8:13 AM  

"Just to bring home the idea, consider how odd it would sound to say that modern organic chemistry is a fraud."

But it would be easy to say such a discipline is "rife with fraud" or "corrupted by fraud", and in fact, if black liberation theologists and women's studies doctorates ever enter the field of organic chemistry in sufficient numbers and begin speaking about how aromatic compounds are the source of the evil white man's oppression of women and minorities you probably will see such charges leveled.

I'm a big fan of science.Science was hugely popular when I was a kid, and they even still encouraged white boys to become scientists back then. I wanted to be a chemist at one point in my childhood.

Still, I have to say, it's pretty hard to take any field of science seriously that has been co-opted by the leftist agenda. For instance, I believe that evolution took, and takes,place. I believe that hominids descended from the greater apes,just as Charles Darwin indicated,even if he wasn't able to spell out every jot and tittle of how that happened. Even if every jot and tittle is NEVER spelled out.

It's a reasonable naturalistic theory.

Imagine my surprise when leftist academics decided to require me to both BELIEVE in evolution and NOT believe in it simultaneously. I.e., if you believe that Jehovah created all human beings equal in seven days 6000 years ago, you're a bigot. If you believe that Nature created them unequally over millennia through a process of natural selection, as Charles Darwin's theory would suggest,and any experience of natural phenomena (which are never or very rarely equal or just by human standards) would confirm,then you're a "racist" bigot.

When I'm required (as in legally or culturally compelled) to believe in something and not believe in at the same time, that's when you've veered a little too close to Orwell territory for my comfort (to say nothing of how far off in retard territory one would have to be to even get that far).

Hence,I now distrust any academic speaking on a theory which even I believe to be scientifically supported by the evidence. I won't even listen any more.The need to not be drowned in the pervasive mind-destroying bullshit and blatant fraud of the academic left has outweighed my scientific curiosity and effectively killed my attraction for something that I have/had a great love for.

Anonymous AmyJ July 28, 2013 8:27 AM  

The boy who did my last pedicure at the local Fancy Nails told me he obtained his biology degrees to do "research". When I asked him what kind, he said - with almost no Vietnamese accent at all: "wherever the big money is at". It's infected the incoming generation of "scientists", too.

Anonymous Jake-the-Rake July 28, 2013 8:33 AM  

Everything BIG is fake because there are marketing specialists... look around you and count the lies. Mostly not even lies, but half truths that are more noxious than most good oldfashioned lies. Everything is hyped up, jingled, sophisticated, doomed to success and leadership. 77% of all emails are spam... They call it The Information Age.

It's the money, plain and simple. Science sold out. But so did gastronomy, education, traveling, procreation, furniture, clothes, entertainment, politics... everything is not just conditioned by money (as well it should be), but governed by it.

Our culture is so plain, obvious, and consistent... so artless and clueless, so measured and massified that a return to basic meat-and-potatoes moral values would cause societal collapse.

Freud might've been a fraud... but his nephew the inventor of marketing was the real deal that permitted the ultimate acceptance and codification of fraud.

Perhaps I exaggerate? Let's go to a corporate website.

Inclusion at Burger King Corporation
Be bold. Be empowered. Be you. Your experiences, talents and ideas make you one-of-a-kind – and perfect for BK®.

Ha! Be bold, be empowered, be you!

I go to Bar Tredici... It's owned and operated by Lenny... If he started talking to me like a corporation, we'd call an ambulance.

No need for David Beckham to advertise his milkshakes... Why did Burger King choose David Beckham? The smart boys in the company skyscraper got together on that one...

But hey, it's all crap, a lie... the fruit ain't fresh... not by a stretch... not like the fruit of the milkshakes in the '50's.

Science in cahoots with money

Anonymous righteous gobbler July 28, 2013 8:41 AM  

Global climate change; equality of races, genders, and sexual orientation; evolution;.....

Your all deniers! Shameless deniers, who need to be silenced at once!

Anonymous Godfrey July 28, 2013 8:42 AM  

"...her compensation package ($598,000 for 2012) relative to the size of the non-profit organization she led."



That says it all. Amazing how statists always manage to pay themselves well... quite well indeed.

There are two means to obtain wealth, the economic means, i.e. earning it, and the political means, i.e. taking it from others. As more people switch from the former to the later, a once prosperous civilization declines into well deserved poverty.

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2013 8:45 AM  

Indeed, modern science is fraud. It's become a replacement for religion and you now have people shrieking at you, "do you BELIEVE in evolution, do you have FAITH in global warming?" Once you start demanding faith and belief, you've left the realm of science and entered something that looks more like religion. Or perhaps fascism.

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2013 8:51 AM  

Jake I find it amusing that of all the great corporate villains out there, the thing that apparently frosts you the most is Burger King and their not-quite-fresh fruit milkshakes.

- Azimus

PS - I do understand your bigger points

Blogger Bob July 28, 2013 9:25 AM  

Leslie Cohen Berlowitz....

Just doing what HER peers do... lie, cheat, and steal from anything and anybody that gets in arms reach.

Anonymous harry12 July 28, 2013 9:29 AM  

Anonymous July 28, 2013 8:51 AM
Jake I find it amusing that of all the great corporate villains out there, the thing that apparently frosts you the most is Burger King and their not-quite-fresh fruit milkshakes.

- Azimus

PS - I do understand your bigger points


I do hope those credentialed local milkshake dispensers wash their hands after examining each others noses.
.

Anonymous harry12 July 28, 2013 9:37 AM  

each others' noses?
each others' nose?
Let's see here. A singular possessive?
Or a plural possessive belonging to more than one person?

( Need moar coffee )

Anonymous The other skeptic July 28, 2013 9:40 AM  

There seems to be a common theme to these Freuds, errr, frauds.

There are some others in the same boat when it comes to the mismeasure of certain people.

Anonymous RedJack July 28, 2013 9:43 AM  

One of the reasons I became an engineer, as opposed to a chemist, is that as an engineer there is one and only one requirement.

Does it work?

Science today has no real concern that the process actually work. They are more geared to "What will get me funded and published?".

Anonymous Steveo July 28, 2013 9:55 AM  

Offense, to the man of integrity... provides a vital learning feedback loop - a stubborn and incremental process toward change for the better. Offense to the leftists, progressives, socialists and communists - that cannot stand on solid foundations of principle because they do not believe they exist, must be criminalized because the speech itself can disprove their ideology when observable reality diverges from their non-stop topical rhetoric;(therefore everybody that does not believe the way they believe must be removed from the equation eventually because the truth becomes a virus to their culture of fraud).

VD's SFWA response is absolutely VITAL to teaching the strength and skill necessary to refuse capitulation in the face of such absurdity. Let them eat cake, but force them to fund their own cake factories from their own pockets, and it goes down like a starving Hostess. If that gives any feminist offense... think about it, but know that a lot of us don't care that you're offended (exactly as you don't care your ideas offend some of us).

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2013 9:56 AM  

When I asked him what kind, he said - with almost no Vietnamese accent at all: "wherever the big money is at".

Climate change!

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2013 10:00 AM  

Steveo, thank you, that was well said.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 28, 2013 10:15 AM  

Global climate change; equality of races, genders, and sexual orientation; evolution;

The modern bread and circuses, err, distractions.

At least Weiner only sought to claim his physical attributes were better.

Anonymous Isn't it ironic, don't you think July 28, 2013 11:02 AM  

"Science is fraud" says the guy using the computer to spread his opinions around the world, instead of lighting incense, reading sheep entrails, and mumbling incoherently to his god to ensure the rains will come to feed his crops.

Anonymous VD July 28, 2013 11:25 AM  

"Science is fraud" says the guy using the computer to spread his opinions around the world

Ironic or not, it is true. Modern professional science is observably corrupt and full of fraud. The historical achievements of long-dead scientists cannot possibly excuse the corruption and fraudulent activity of their successors.

Anonymous Atlas July 28, 2013 11:27 AM  

You can add Alfred Kinsley to that list of giant frauds too.

Anonymous Mr.A is Mr.A July 28, 2013 11:31 AM  

@Isn't it ironic, don't you think

Not very perceptive of you at all on the reading comprehension. As a physicist, my credibility takes a hit every time a new revelation about AGW pops up, every time someone falsifies a credential and uses it to pontificate about the purity and truth of science, every time that credentialism replaces knowledge and the search of truth.

I have three junior physicists working for me that I am training to question their "betters" opinions in their studies on a daily basis. That includes mine.

Scientists are skeptics first; collaborators with "consensus science" should be treated a the Vichy they are.

Anonymous Atlas July 28, 2013 11:34 AM  

Kinsey, that is.

Sigh, too early and insufficient caffeine...

Anonymous rabbitfarts July 28, 2013 12:10 PM  

SCIENCE!(TM) make good computer for me. be suckka science's wang

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2013 12:19 PM  

A less famous but very influential example would be Ancel Keys, whose cherry-picked nutritional studies were used to drive uncritical belief in the goodness of industrial vegetable oils (including trans-fats) and the evils of animals fats and cholesterol.

Blogger Kristophr July 28, 2013 12:44 PM  

The fraud will continue until government subsidies are removed from arts and social degrees, and any hard degree program that has been partially invaded by the same.

A real artist does not need a degree to make art, an education degree degrades real teaching abilities, and social degrees should be the domain of people with private or familial patrons.

Anonymous Godfrey July 28, 2013 12:51 PM  

@Kristophr July 28, 2013 12:44 PM
"The fraud will continue until government subsidies are removed from arts and social degrees, and any hard degree program that has been partially invaded by the same."


Not likely to happen. The wealthy elites love to mold and use the useful idiots on the left.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 28, 2013 1:00 PM  

That says it all. Amazing how statists always manage to pay themselves well... quite well indeed.

Well, as a noted, ah, scientific philosopher once said, to each according to his (or her) needs. And lefty women are very needy indeed.

There are two means to obtain wealth, the economic means, i.e. earning it, and the political means, i.e. taking it from others.

There is a third way, closely related to taking, and that is defrauding, which is what this woman is guilty of. It is a subset of theft, but it's worth calling out separately because often neither the con artist nor the mark are initially aware of the fraud. I suspect Mizz Berlowitz realized her $598k salary was dubious (though I'm sure her hamster could spin out a rationalization of it on demand), but what did she start out as? Was she originally making one-twentieth of that coordinating fundraising campaigns to pay the salary of her predecessor? Did she realize she was running a con then? Did the donors? Small-time ones probably not, but any big-money donors likely knew what they were buying, and were in on the con that was supporting the con...

As more people switch from the former to the later, a once prosperous civilization declines into well deserved poverty

This part, this part is dead on true. We're far along this path already. Too many of the people with the greatest inherent capacity for productivity have been coopted into pursuing un-earned wealth. Many of them even think it's a virtue.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 28, 2013 1:08 PM  

Scientists are skeptics first; collaborators with "consensus science" should be treated a the Vichy they are.

The scientific method is very valuable, and worth teaching and using. To the extent Science is the practice of the scientific method, it's doing good.

But as in so many other cases, the Left has appropriated the label of something good and used it to camouflage their underhanded quest for power and money. The Global Warmingmonger "Climate Scientists" have no more to do with "science" than the average modern Prog "Liberal" has to do with "liberty."

Anonymous Heh July 28, 2013 1:10 PM  

"Science is fraud" says the guy using the computer to spread his opinions around the world,

Less ironic and hypocritical than Algore or Prince Charles jetsetting around in their hydrocarbon-powered aircraft to decry the evils of hydrocarbon power.

Besides, there ain't a lot of "science" happening in Silicon Valley. It's mostly engineering and marketing. The "computer science" courses I took in college had little scientific content and even less relevance to the real world (fraud was a pretty good description of those courses).

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 28, 2013 3:09 PM  

You should add Boas and Kinsey to the fraudster list. As for "modern science" (to use VD's term for it - I prefer squid science myself), there's nothing very modern about it. It's actually quite derivative, which you can see from the Scientist's shahadah.

There is no truth but warming, and Algore is its profit!

Has anyone noticed how the AGW proposition never dies? Decades of fabricated data exposed, disproved multiple times, etc. In a rational world, the whole thing - along with feminism - would have been laughed out of existence by now. But we live in a world where the zombie just staggers onward forever - shot full of holes while muttering and drooling like Juan McAmnesty on caffeine.

Anonymous vryedenker July 28, 2013 4:09 PM  

A South African politician made two confessions on public radio two weeks ago:

1. Carbon tax' main goal is to take money from rich countries and redistribute it to the poor who are suffering (because global warming somehow makes them poor).

2. Our government doesn't care about whether there is a 99% chance that the science is wrong, they're going with the 1% chance it is right. He went on to say that we can't afford to wait for science to provide conclusive proof of things before we act, because it might be too late.

Now, if you don't find anything off about statement #2, you probably majored in english lit.

Anonymous Heh July 28, 2013 4:40 PM  

Has anyone noticed how the AGW proposition never dies?

It's like it's too politically useful ever to be discarded, or something!

Anonymous Godfrey July 28, 2013 4:51 PM  

"...her compensation package ($598,000 for 2012) relative to the size of the non-profit organization she led."



The Left seeks to help humanity and they help themselves VERY well.

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2013 4:58 PM  

If it's unfalsifiable, it's unscientific.

R7 Rocket

Anonymous Mudz July 28, 2013 8:16 PM  

"Science is fraud" says the guy using the computer to spread his opinions around the world


He probably wears shoes too.

Therefore science is consistently being pursued honestly.

Anonymous Ann Morgan July 29, 2013 3:46 AM  

The Great Martini wrote: **Biology is one of those weird crossover disciplines, since it is part chemistry and partly about us since we are biological beings. Biology is controversial like the social sciences are controversial, even though it's nominally a natural science.**

Well, I actually find that interesting, it reflects a conversation my mother had with the minister of some church, she made a comment to him regarding DNA, and his immediate response was: "The bible trumps DNA".

Okay... now this is interesting, to claim that the bible trumps science, because if you actually are religious, then you must believe that God created the universe, and therefore the scientific laws that operate the universe (including biology). Those who claim their religion disproves science must believe in one of several things:

1. God is deceiving the scientists, causing them to come up with erroneous results, in order to 'test our faith'. This would make God a liar, and therefore indistinguishable from the devil. Not very likely. And if it were the case, then technology would fail to work.

2. The devil is deceiving the scientists and causing them to come up with erroneous results. This would make the devil more powerful than God. There's a name for this belief - the Manichean Heresy. Also, not very likely. And if it were the case, technology would fail to work.

3. All scientists, even those who never met, and lived in different countries thousands of miles apart, or at different times, are involved in a secret conspiracy to give false results that contradict the bible. Also - not very likely and if it were the case, technology would fail to work.

4. My particular interpretation of the bible is superior to the actual laws of the universe, as made by God. Or in other words, I believe that I am smarter and more powerful than God. This is actually most likely, because an erroneous egotistical belief on the part of religious fundamentalists does would not prevent technology from working.

Anonymous Ann Morgan July 29, 2013 4:01 AM  

Steve wrote: **When I'm required (as in legally or culturally compelled) to believe in something and not believe in at the same time, that's when you've veered a little too close to Orwell territory for my comfort (to say nothing of how far off in retard territory one would have to be to even get that far).**

Well, there's a lot of things like that. For instance, one is simultaneous required to believe that all races are equal, yet at the same time, one must believe that it is also correct for aptitude test scores to be raised for some races and lowered for others, in order to make things equal (wait a minute, I thought be already believed all the races are equal, so why would we need to do that?), to force employers to hire based on race (but if they are equal, why is that necessary) and to complain about some races moving out of a neighborhood (White Flight). But if all races are equal, then why should it matter where people of one race choose to live?

I don't play heads I win tails you lose games like that. If blacks want to claim they are equal, then they will be treated equally. No special priveleges or affirmative action or bitching about where other people live. If they want special privileges, then they should first publicly admit to being inferior. Or we can even do it on a case by case basis, each individual black can choose for themselves whether they actually want to be treated as an equal, or whether they want special goodies, in which case they will be classified as inferior.

Anonymous Ann Morgan July 29, 2013 4:12 AM  

**2. Our government doesn't care about whether there is a 99% chance that the science is wrong, they're going with the 1% chance it is right. He went on to say that we can't afford to wait for science to provide conclusive proof of things before we act, because it might be too late.**

I see, so if 'science' said that if you jump off the roof you could fly away like superman, and there was a 99% chance that was wrong, you'd jump off the roof anyway, on the 1% chance it was right, before it's too late, because the sale on superman capes at WalMart ends today? And of course the 99% chance you'd fall 500 feet to your death doesn't matter, you have to act on the 1% chance you can fly like superman before it is 'too late'?

And 'too late' for what, exactly? Everyone keeps saying 'we have to act before it is TOO LATE' but they never do say *exactly* what will occur, if we fail to act 'before it is too late'. They leave it to the listener to imagine some sort of horrible doom, but never do specify what it is, because the moment they did specify what it is, they could be disproven.

And honestly, I suspect what they REALLY mean by "We have to act before it is 'too late'" is that "We have to act, before our alarmist nonsense is exposed as a fraud, and everyone realises it is a fraud, and refuses to lower their lifestyle to that of a medieval peasant."

Oh, and I minored in English writing, btw.

Blogger Taqiyyotomist July 29, 2013 4:57 PM  

Worldwide resort industry hardest hit.

Anonymous Augustina July 29, 2013 8:13 PM  

I used to believe that if more people became scientists we would actually make faster progress in uncovering the truth and benefitting society.

So I became a scientist. I don't believe that anymore.

What I see are a lot of bright well meaning people (undergrads, grad students, post-docs, etc) who need something to do, and are given projects to work on. Most of these projects are derivative, pointless and sometimes not technically feasible. Yet they most often end up as publishable work (posters for scientific conferences at least).

Most of it is garbage and contradicts the work of other people given similar projects in other labs. Often the work contradicts results from the same study, or previous studies done in the same lab (eg, drug x has this effect, but also this completely opposite effect under slightly different circumstances).

What has happened with all these people pursuing STEM degrees is that the signal to noise ratio is bad, and declining. If there is good science out there, and brilliant insights are being made, then we'd have a hard time seeing it due to the noise generated by all this mediocre 'science.'

Blogger Bob Wallace July 29, 2013 8:24 PM  

Speaking of scientific frauds, you might want to put Evo-Psych in there.

As for Freud, he wanted to enforce his id/ego/superego as scientific truth, which is one of the reasons Jung pulled away from him.

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2013 2:14 PM  

I had a class this past term where the only way to know what the homework problems were was to buy the solutions manual. It was 15 pages of printer paper in plastic binding for 7 dollars. And then they turned out to be just someone else's solutions, with random sloppy edits here and there. It wasn't even complete, as some problems were just cut off mid-way.

Then someone brought up a question in class and we found fatal flaws in the solution to one of the problems. And the professor's justification was "well I just copied someone else and he probably copied someone else and errors just propagate because no one checks."

When students are found out they're shafted due to the Divine Code which prohibits "Plagiarism".

But for the professors it's okay.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts