Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 133 posts

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#51

Post by adamc »

constantcrying wrote: post #18
vouaobrasil wrote: post #10

It may be a person's instinct to immediately blame the researcher, and of course, I definitely think data fabrication is never justified. However, what is the societal problem here? It's the problem that in academia, there are such pressures to publish and be first nowadays that many people will do anything to get ahead. It doesn't help that social media and news sites have introduced a sort of gamification into it.…

>It's the problem that in academia, there are such pressures to publish and be first nowadays that many people will do anything to get ahead. If you can not do honest work in academia you should leave and go work somewhere else. Fraud is not the correct reaction to the problems of academia, as it actively hurts it even more. Nobody is forced to do academic research for a living, especially if you have a degree in phy…

It's not the correct reaction but it's a predictable reaction. Academia has some huge problems with how they measure success and how they police academic integrity. The incentives make this outcome likely.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#52

Post by banannaise »

constantcrying wrote: post #18
vouaobrasil wrote: post #10

It may be a person's instinct to immediately blame the researcher, and of course, I definitely think data fabrication is never justified. However, what is the societal problem here? It's the problem that in academia, there are such pressures to publish and be first nowadays that many people will do anything to get ahead. It doesn't help that social media and news sites have introduced a sort of gamification into it.…

>It's the problem that in academia, there are such pressures to publish and be first nowadays that many people will do anything to get ahead. If you can not do honest work in academia you should leave and go work somewhere else. Fraud is not the correct reaction to the problems of academia, as it actively hurts it even more. Nobody is forced to do academic research for a living, especially if you have a degree in phy…

There are no steroids in baseball.

Steroid users are few and far between, and we must weed them out of baseball.

Nearly everyone is using steroids, but it was their choice, so it's their own fault.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#53

Post by malkia »

pvaldes wrote: post #24

Science currently looks like somebody going to fish, with the purpose of caught the best fish in the sea. So first they put the bait inside a plastic box, to weed out all the dumb fishes. Then they put the box inside another sealed wooden box, with a combination lockpad. Because only a really smart fish with skilled fin-paws should be able to figure out how to open also that box. For better measure, they finally put…

This reminds of a completely different joke about fishes, and getting caught:

   Police officer stops someone for driving over the limit. The driver:
    - But I wasn't the fastest going on the road. What about the others?
    - So when you go fishing, do you always catch the biggest fish?
anyway...

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#54

Post by andrewflnr »

gilmore606 wrote: post #39
andrewflnr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tl;dr: not allowing data fabrication is some kind of lofty, unreasonable standard that doesn't allow science to be published. Please.

That's not what he means, he's saying the pressure to constantly publish original research (the more original the better!) creates these incentives to become a rat, that is, to cheat.

That's bullshit, though. Pressure is not an excuse to fabricate data, and no one will defend that claim out loud. But what else does a rambly comment about how hard it is for researchers mean under a story about data fabrication?

Ed: to be clear, the one making the argument about publishing pressure in a sensible way is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36881029

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#55

Post by FrustratedMonky »

smeyer wrote: post #5
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #3

[flagged]

I assume there are folks faking data in all fields, but I also assume that the rate of faked data is not the same across all fields.

Guess you don't know, if it is fake, do you? All we have are a few point examples, the total fakery is an unknown.

For decades it has been noted that Math/Physics, are very difficult to peer review, because there might only be a few people that can understand each sub-field. And, since they all work together, there have been cases of 'collusion' in the past.

Social Sciences are not all fake, they do have reproducibility percentages over 50%. You can argue that isn't high enough for your taste, but it is a valid number. Maybe Physicist is in the >90%. That doesn't mean All social science is faulty, or all physicist are pure. They are different fields with different challenges with different ability to do measurements. So, it is hard to re-produce.

Lately, AI papers aren't able to be re-produced. Where is the hate for them?

HN has tendency to pile on to social sciences based on just the same sensational headlines without much knowledge of the fields.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#56

Post by ninesnines »

This makes me so angry. As an early career researcher it is so easy to make mistakes, and have errors in analysis, or in ways of thinking, that to actively go and commit fraud just really grinds my gears and is just so incredibly unethical and pushes all of science back. we need to have a friendlier environment where honest mistakes can be brought forward without shame and a culture that promotes slow science that isn’t always flashy; sometimes you’re just helping fit one small piece of the puzzle and that is ok and admirable

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#57

Post by readthenotes1 »

j_maffe wrote: post #33
pvaldes wrote: post #24

Science currently looks like somebody going to fish, with the purpose of caught the best fish in the sea. So first they put the bait inside a plastic box, to weed out all the dumb fishes. Then they put the box inside another sealed wooden box, with a combination lockpad. Because only a really smart fish with skilled fin-paws should be able to figure out how to open also that box. For better measure, they finally put…

I think you're talking about Academia, not science. The scientific method is not at fault here.

Any method that ignores the limitations of the instruments of production is indeed very flawed

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#58

Post by canjobear »

Doesn't it seem very irrational to fabricate data in materials science?

If your result is interesting, people will try to replicate it; it won't replicate, and you'll have to explain why.

If your result is not interesting, people won't try to replicate it, but then you don't gain much by publishing it.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#59

Post by dilap »

j_maffe wrote: post #33
pvaldes wrote: post #24

Science currently looks like somebody going to fish, with the purpose of caught the best fish in the sea. So first they put the bait inside a plastic box, to weed out all the dumb fishes. Then they put the box inside another sealed wooden box, with a combination lockpad. Because only a really smart fish with skilled fin-paws should be able to figure out how to open also that box. For better measure, they finally put…

I think you're talking about Academia, not science. The scientific method is not at fault here.

sure, but in practice when people use the word science (as in "trust the science"), they mostly mean research happening in academia

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#60

Post by thereddaikon »

j_maffe wrote: post #33
pvaldes wrote: post #24

Science currently looks like somebody going to fish, with the purpose of caught the best fish in the sea. So first they put the bait inside a plastic box, to weed out all the dumb fishes. Then they put the box inside another sealed wooden box, with a combination lockpad. Because only a really smart fish with skilled fin-paws should be able to figure out how to open also that box. For better measure, they finally put…

I think you're talking about Academia, not science. The scientific method is not at fault here.

Show me someone that questions the scientific method. You would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable person who does. When people criticize "science" they are almost always criticizing academia. Getting pedantic isn't very helpful.
Post reply on HN