like you go to the not-believing-until-seeing convention with lies and what? expect to get away with it?

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean thats pretty out-right fraud, but plenty of scientific fraud is more… idk if I would say nefarious, but certainly as damaging. There is so much pressure to get “certain” results. Its much much more work to detect either intentional or “self-delusioned” statistical fraud. Science is already incredibly difficult when you don’t have the pressure on you to generate specific results.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      In Paleoanthropology these days, you will not find an article about a hominid fossil discovery that doesn’t include some variant of the phrase “forcing Anthropologists to rethink their assumptions”. This all derives from the “Lucy” find that truly did force Anthropologists to rethink their assumptions. Before Lucy, it was assumed that the two most unique aspects of humans - our big brains and our bipedal locomotion - evolved together, but the fact that the 3.9 myo Lucy (since revised to 3.3 myo) was fully bipedal despite having a chimpanzee-sized brain threw this assumption out the window. The career successes of her discoverers and analysts prompted everyone else who finds a bit of thigh bone to make similar claims of significance, despite the fact that no other discovery has had any real earth-shattering significance like that.

      No fraud but just massive overstating of importance.