On 29 Sep 2006 11:13:15 -0700,

As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.

That's a strength, not a weakness.

As for the effectiveness of replication in spotting fraud, there
appears to be a vast gap between theory and practice. In today's
highly competitive field of scientific research, scientists are more
concerned with breaking new ground than with repeating what someone
else has done. Even if a scientist's work is based on an experiment
done by someone else, the experiment is rarely repeated in exactly the
same form.

The problem of replication is further compounded by what is sometimes
called salami science. Some researchers deliberately 'slice up'
their experimental findings into small bits in order to multiply the
number of publishable works. This "affords an opportunity for
dishonesty," says a Harvard committee, "because such reports are
less likely to be verified by others." Researchers well know that
unless an experiment is really important, it is unlikely that anyone
will try to repeat it. It has been estimated that as much as half of
all published papers are "unchecked, unreplicated, and maybe even
unread

"Xavier Harkonnen" <GeidiPrime@gamu.org> wrote in message
news:eWaTg.201$3T2.133@trnddc06...
| Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his
| pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when
| published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
| Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was
| strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German
| mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud
| between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.
|
| Writing in Science, Richard S. Westfall asserted that, to strengthen his
| position, Newton made some “adjustments” in the Principia so that his
| calculations and measurements would more closely support his theory,
| making it more convincing. In one example, accuracy of one part in 3,000
| was claimed, and in another his computations were carried to seven
| decimal places, something quite unheard of in those days. “If the
| Principia established the quantitative pattern of modern science,” wrote
| Westfall, “it equally suggested a less sublime truth—that no one can
| manipulate the fudge factor so effectively as the master mathematician
| himself.”
|
| Newton allowed himself to be drawn into another controversy that
| eventually got the better of him. To claim priority over Leibniz for the
| invention of calculus, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Newton,
| as president of the esteemed Royal Society, “appointed an ‘impartial’
| committee [made up mostly of his adherents] to investigate the issue,
| secretly wrote the report officially published by the society, and
| reviewed it anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions,” thus
| crediting himself with the honor.
|
| That a man of Newton’s stature would resort to such tactics is indeed a
| paradox. It clearly shows that conscientious and honorable though a
| scientist, or anyone, may be in other things, when his own reputation or
| interest is at stake, he can become quite dogmatic, irrational, even
| reckless, or take a shortcut.
|
| “It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are
| human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly,
| honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in
| some fields, but not in many,” writes consultant Roy Herbert in New
| Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of
| science, he adds, “I find no difficulty in accepting that.”

Produce the evidence.

Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his
pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when
published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was
strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German
mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud
between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.

Writing in Science, Richard S. Westfall asserted that, to strengthen his
position, Newton made some "adjustments" in the Principia so that his
calculations and measurements would more closely support his theory,
making it more convincing. In one example, accuracy of one part in 3,000
was claimed, and in another his computations were carried to seven
decimal places, something quite unheard of in those days. "If the
Principia established the quantitative pattern of modern science," wrote
Westfall, "it equally suggested a less sublime truth-that no one can
manipulate the fudge factor so effectively as the master mathematician
himself."

Newton allowed himself to be drawn into another controversy that
eventually got the better of him. To claim priority over Leibniz for the
invention of calculus, according to the Encyclop=E6dia Britannica, Newton,
as president of the esteemed Royal Society, "appointed an 'impartial'
committee [made up mostly of his adherents] to investigate the issue,
secretly wrote the report officially published by the society, and
reviewed it anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions," thus
crediting himself with the honor.

That a man of Newton's stature would resort to such tactics is indeed a
paradox. It clearly shows that conscientious and honorable though a
scientist, or anyone, may be in other things, when his own reputation or
interest is at stake, he can become quite dogmatic, irrational, even
reckless, or take a shortcut.

"It seems a reasonable, not to say trite, thought that scientists are
human, subject to the same frailties as we all are, heroic, cowardly,
honest and sly, silly and sensible in about the same measure, expert in
some fields, but not in many," writes consultant Roy Herbert in New
Scientist. Though this view may not be held universally in the world of
science, he adds, "I find no difficulty in accepting that."

Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his
pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when
published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was
strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German
mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud
between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.

Isaac Newton is often called the father of modern physics for his
pioneering work on the theory of universal gravitation. The idea, when
published in his famous treatise Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), was
strongly opposed by some contemporary scientists, including the German
mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. This resulted in an extended feud
between them that was not put to rest until the end of their lives.

Joe Bednorz wrote:>

And eventually come up with an explanation that not only fits, it
makes successful predictions.

Sometimes, Idealistically, one might expect that the dedicated scientist
would press forward undaunted until the truth is found. But the fact of
the matter is that generally we know very little about what goes on behind
closed laboratory doors. Is there reason to believe that those engaged in
scientific pursuits are less influenced by the baser human characteristics
such as prejudice, rivalry, ambition and greed?

"Personal preferences and human emotions are said to be suppressed by the
scientist in the interest of securing truth," wrote Michael Mahoney in
Psychology Today. "However, the annals of both early and contemporary
science suggest that this portrayal is less than accurate."

PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
“Eureka!” he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.

That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science.

Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science’s hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues—objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth.

The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.

In reality, however, things are not quite that simple.

In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.

PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
"Eureka!" he shouted. And Jabriol was discovered.

PEERING down the microscope, the scientist jumped at what he saw.
"Eureka!" he shouted. And another great scientific discovery was made.

That is the sort of thing we are taught to believe about the triumphs of
science. Recall your elementary-school science class for a moment.
Remember the great heroes in science's hall of fame? Men like Galileo,
Newton, Darwin and Einstein are extolled not only for their scientific
achievements but also for their virtues-objectivity, dedication,
honesty, humility, and so forth. The impression was that by the sheer
force of their superior intelligence and rational mind, the mysteries of
nature just unveiled themselves and the truth simply popped out in front
of them.

In reality, however, things are not quite that simple. In most cases,
scientists must spend months or years laboring in the laboratories,
struggling with results that often are confusing, puzzling and even
contradictory.