Download 501 b.
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Fraud-Detection Tool Could Shake Up Psychology
- ‘questionable research practices’ that aren’t uncommon in his field
Father of lies: Jesus spoke of Satan as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44), the classic first lie starting in the garden (Genesis 3:4–5). All humans fall prey to bearing false witness at times, but it is especially egregious when scientists, ostensibly committed to intellectual integrity, follow the father of lies. Last year the fraud of Diederik Stapel “shook the field to its core” (see11/05/2011); now, another psychology fraud from the Netherlands was reported in Science magazine (6 July 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6090 pp. 21–22), this time by a software algorithm devised by Uri Simonsohn to detect fraud. In the category “Scientific Ethics,” Martin Enserik headlined, “Fraud-Detection Tool Could Shake Up Psychology” because the ripple effect could affect more than just the career of latest perpetrator, Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University Rotterdam:
The method may help the field of psychological science clean up its act and restore its credibility, he adds—but it may also turn colleagues into adversaries and destroy careers. The field will need ample debate on how to use it, Nosek says, much the way physicists had to grapple with the advent of nuclear physics. “This is psychology’s atomic bomb,” he says.
While the validity of Simonsohn’s statistical tool is still being evaluated, Smeesters didn’t help matters much when he included in his explanation this cop-out: ” the odd data patterns found by Simonsohn emerged because of what he calls ‘questionable research practices’ that aren’t uncommon in his field, such as doing multiple analyses and picking the most convincing one, or leaving out certain subjects.”
Update 07/12/2012: Nature News reported another catch. Simonshohn found suspicious anomalies in the data of Lawrence Sanna, who retired inexplicably at the end of May from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, after requesting retraction of 3 of his papers. Again, Sanna’s data was too good to be true. Simonsohn had been questioning Sanna since fall, but the university would not explain the reason for his resignation, and Sanna is not responding to requests for information. Simonsohn denies being on a fishing expedition. ““Some people are concerned that this will damage psychology as a whole and the public will perceive an epidemic of fraud,” he said. Claiming that retractions are common in many fields, he said, “I think that’s unfounded.” He claims he’s just trying to set an example for how research data should be reported.
What is implied by the quote, “The method may help the field of psychological science clean up its act and restore its credibility”?
The psychologist notices that the Patient is getting correct answers to a surprising number of questions she shouldn’t know. To alleviate any suspicions of trickery, he asks the Patient, “Am I communicating with your unconscious mind?” The blindfolded Patient moves the marker to the Yes mark on the board. “Is there any kind of outside influence acting on you right now?” Answer: No. “Do you believe in demons?” Answer: No. “Demons don’t exist, do they?” Answer: No. “Theologians are unscientific to believe in devils, aren’t they?” Answer: Yes. “Am I a good scientist?” Answer: Yes. “Should I write this up in a journal as experimental proof of the Unconscious?” Answer: Yes. “Are all my colleagues in psychology honorable and noble seekers of the truth?” Answer: Yes.
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling