>>> Posting number 1347, dated 13 Nov 1996 21:20:00 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:20:00 +0100 Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Discussion of Fraud in Science From: Per Dalen Subject: Re: SCIFRAUD Digest - 2 Nov 1996 to 3 Nov 1996 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 23:47 12-11-96 -0500, Brant Watson wrote: >John, > >In a message dated 96-11-12 18:08:27 EST, you write: > >> Re those 50-year-old books in psychiatry ... It may be worth a moment's >> thought about why it is that we still get new texts in geometry, though >the >> subject matter to be taught has scarcely changed for centuries. Maybe >> other things matter too, such as our needs for and expected uses of the >> information, improved methods of presentation and teaching, and changing >> levels of background information and interest. > > Another factor must be kept in mind when discussing whether there is >general improvement in books on a certain topic over the years. You are all >aware of the old axiom, "Publish or perish." In my own profession of >education, I have witnessed the effects of this pressure. Some truly >questionable stuff has been published just because someone wanted to achieve >status in his/her profession. Too many academicians seem to want to be >credited with establishing new paradigms rather than contributing more >worthwhile (albeit less glamorous) details to the existing ones. There is truth in all this, of course, but my original suggestion was that the older literature may contain very valuable insights that have simply been forgotten. This view is decidedly impopular, probably because it threatens our collective self-esteem as scientists. Science is supposed to be progressive almost by definition, with powerful self-correcting mechanisms, but we all know there are exceptions that contradict this cheerful view of the matter. Ted Gerrard, and Dewey McLean have given us further examples of distortions in the process of science which have been going on for quite a long time, with no assurance that truth will prevail within the next few decades. Of course personal ambition is behind much of this, but the depressing thing is that we tend to adopt the role of passive spectators, even shrugging our shoulders at quite ridiculous displays of roughshod dominance. As we know, research runs largely on public money, and we are collectively responsible for the image of science. If people want boxing matches they will sooner or later put their money on the real thing instead of the rather sordid academic variety ;-). Per Per Dalen