There is a good Opinion piece in the November Scientific American, Fudge Factor: a look at Harvard science fraud case by Scott O. Lillienfeld. He discusses the problem of distinguishing intentional scientific fraud from confirmation bias, the tendency we have as scientists to selectively interpret data in order to confirm our own theories.
This is a good reminder that the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Superconductivity: a poster child for emergence
Superconductivity beautifully illustrates the characteristics of emergent properties. Novelty. Distinct properties of the superconducting s...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
-
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
No comments:
Post a Comment