= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Athrelon comments on [Link] The real end of science - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (54)
Is there a reason to believe we've got 3-10x better at detecting fraud in the past decade?
Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
Not literally true, but I wouldn't be surprised that the expansion of access to electronic articles, and the expansion of people with access to see them, has resulted in a 3-10x greater read rate for the important articles.
Well, is there a reason to believe scientists have become 3x-10x more fraudulent in the past decade?
Possible reasons for a scientist to be fraudulent is glory and fierce competition (which is usually for jobs and grants). Both factors existed prominently in the past as well as nowadays. On the other hand, as buybuydandavis points out, there are good reasons to believe that we've become better at spotting suspect scientific articles.
I like to include 'money' in lists regarding motives for fraud too. There is plenty of that floating about in (certain kinds of) science.