Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1441 sci.misc:2283
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!gordonl
From: gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: accusation vs suspicion
Keywords: skepticism debunking
Message-ID: <1663@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jul 88 17:37:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: microsof.1663
References: <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1653@microsoft.UUCP> <2366@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Microsoft, Inc., Redmond, Washington
Lines: 34


  In article <2366@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, eddy@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Sean Eddy) writes:
  > In article <1653@microsoft.UUCP> gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) writes:
  > >Fraud happens on a daily basis in the scientific
  > >world.  There are many many examples of key scientific studies that
  > >were fraudulent.  
  > >
  > >Given the facts of this case, fraud is a very very plausible hyphothesis...
  > 
  > I have to take exception to this. Fraud may occur in science
  > (although I would question the sanity of someone who were to commit fraud
  > on *this* scale), but the whole business of science is based on truth.
  > Fraud is a monstrous offense. Accordingly, one does not go about
  > accusing a scientist of fraud simply because some results are
  > unbelievable. I should prefer shouting "rape" at a priest to shouting
  > "fraud" at a scientist.

And *I* take exception to this.  Nobody accused them of fraud.  They
*checked* for fraud.  Go to the bank and ask to get into your safe deposit
box.  They'll ask for ID.  Are they *accusing* you of fraud and theft?
Certainly not, they're just checking.

And sending Randi et. al. to the lab is *checking* for fraud.  His presense
is in no way an accusation.  And in fact, their final report doesn't
claim fraud on anyone's part.

As for the sanity of pulling a high level fraud that they must know will
become exposed, I can't understand that either, but it happens all the time.
In a lot of scientific frauds it seems clear the perpetrator figured that
he'd get away with it, but (examples now hazy in my mind) I have read of
at least a few where it was clear that they guy would get found out.
I think that sometimes people, when under pressure, go from the frying pan
into the fire because the frying pan is now and the fire is future.  This
illogic can claim even 'scientists', it seems.