TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Is our faith in the High Priests of Science misplaced?

The problem with ‘science’ is that it has been misplaced in the hierarchy of methods of investigating and understanding things, it has been incorrectly elevated to the role of the High Priest of knowledge and wisdom and as such, it has sought to provide answers where its role should be limited to that of observation, experiment and measurement. Is it this elevation of science to a level which it really does not deserve that tempts many scientists to act in dishonest ways to further or maintain their own professional or personal status within their own discipline within the scientific community?

A recurring theme of dishonesty and plagiarism occurs throughout the history of science in the work of people such as Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton and Einstein to name just a few. Is the dubious behavior of such figures a contributory cause or result of their iconic status? Is it surprising that if such iconic figures can engage in unethical behavior that ‘lesser’ scientists follow the trend? Why is science not sufficiently self-regulating and self-correcting?

Then moving on to more profound questions, we ask what damage is caused to Science by fraud, plagiarism and other unprofessional behavior? And, of particularly great importance, to what extent have these actions created false or flawed scientific paradigms and what blind alleys and over what periods of time have these possibly false paradigms delayed true scientific advancement?

Sadly, we do see in science not just a few bad apples but a systemic problem with misconduct. The following statement by Fanelli is shocking, “Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past, 81% were willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper.”This is the next generation of scientists who should be striving to maintain the highest levels of integrity in their chosen professions.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 12 2013: I see a strange logic here. by attacking a few bad apple of scientists, then you claim that ID should be treated as science too. Regardless of how you see about the ethics of even,as you say, many "scientists" are plagiarists and cheaters,but who would invent things so that you could join this conversation on the internet, drive a car or take a bus, live in an air conditioned house, etc.
    You said :"Science is any endeavor that is a reasonable interpretation of data derived through observation, experimentation or replication."
    Now please show us what what is the data from which you or anybody observed or experimented and let us render a reasonable interpretation as a qualified endeavor. I don't claim that there are no cheaters or plagiarists in science, because bad apples appear everywhere. But you can't say that science is no good because there are many bad apples in it. Because you would not have modern ways of living, or even live as long as you and your families have without the scientific development during the past.. Furthermore it is not quite logical to say that science is bad, so ID could be qualified as science.
    • thumb
      Jun 12 2013: ID is one of the baddest apples pretending to be science
      • W T 100+

        • 0
        Jun 12 2013: What exactly do you understand to be at the core of ID?
        Is there a list of particulars that this theory teaches?

        There are so many different perceptions of this idea.
        I am just interested in your take on it Obey.

        Thanks for the reply.
      • Jun 12 2013: There are worse---for quite some time it was argued that Caucasians were superior because they had a larger brain size. Based on this alleged scale, various "measurements" of brain size were used to justify the belief in the superiority of White's compared to European Jews (next biggest) to African Americans (next biggest) to Native Americans (smallest). Then it was determined that the measurements were all wrong and that this "science" was demonstrably false.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.