Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv8u3ui wrote

Reply to comment by JustAPerspective in Science as a moral system by CartesianClosedCat

>The identification of integrity as essential to information's validity is quite telling.

But is it? The information is either true or false, no matter who communicates the information.

>Science relies on accurate information to make actual advances.

That's true, but is the author's integrity important to whether the information is true or false? Is there a real difference between a bad actor reporting that 1+1=3 and a good-natured scientist accidentally reporting the same falsehood? From either source, anyone can run their own experiment to test the hypothesis. Information is the material of science, not the people making the claims.

2

JustAPerspective t1_iv8w0d4 wrote

If someone lies, all of their work is suspect - regardless of whether it is incompetence or willful deceit.

0

BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv92jnm wrote

If someone publishes, their work is suspect. All work is suspect, no matter who says it or why - that's the whole point of the scientific method.

The only way to verify suspect information is using the scientific method, not through an interrogation of the author. The scientific method works just the same for true and false information and for claims made by good and bad people.

When a paper is published announcing a discovery or it happens to be the first confirmation of some theory, it isn't then touted as fact because the author has a track-record or does charity work and passes the vibe/integrity check.

2

JustAPerspective t1_iv9e6bj wrote

Long & short: lie on purpose, wrong.

Make a mistake: oops; shit happens.

Willful misinformation is not forgivable, for a long list of reasons that only confuse those who can't imagine a world without lying.

What you're talking about is information verification, which is a different thing.

So... whatever makes ya happy.

−1

DrakBalek t1_ivf3nrv wrote

Knowing that a scientist has a habit of publishing misleading, misguided, inaccurate or otherwise deliberately false information is justification for ignoring what that scientist says and believes.

It's not justification for ignoring the results of their work.

>If someone lies, all of their work is suspect . . .

and within scientific fields and disciplines, the standard is that all work is suspect until it's been tested and recreated under similar conditions.

1