Philosophy
An epistemological question: Is there personal bias by scientists in analyzing a set of experiments? There is a recent book review [The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation by, Kent W Staley] at "physicsweb" by Bill Carithers discussing the interesting search for the sixth component of the Standard Model of particle physics at Fermilab.
"I was particularly interested in Staley's examination of possible bias in the methodology and how the CDF collaboration dealt with it. When particle physicists try to find a particular set of events among the trillions of collisions that occur in an accelerator, they have to focus their search by ignoring data outside a certain range. In the case of the top quark, the CDF physicists knew that they could select their data in two different ways. Although both approaches were valid, the one they chose turned out to produce a stronger signal."--Bill Carithers
"The top quark: an unbiased tale"
Book:
The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation by, Kent W Staley
ISBN: 0521827108
And, in October of 2005 to cite one of many recent instances of scientists doing bad science was the dismissal of Luk Van Parijs of MIT who admitted "...to fabricating and falsifying research data in a published scientific paper and several manuscripts and grant applications."
"Five experts were asked to view results from some of these papers, which cast light on the detailed signals that prompt cells of the immune system to commit suicide. While they emphasise the need to see the underlying raw data, they say they have sufficient doubts about the authenticity of specific figures within the papers to merit an independent investigation into their authenticity."
Peer review is worthwhile and a necessary part of sound scientific methodology.
"MIT professor sacked for fabricating data"
- Ben Goldacre - What Doctors Don't Know About The Drugs They Prescribe
Richard Feynman once defined science as that which we do to avoid fooling ourselves. We humans are universally prone to the cognitive bias known as selection (or confirmation) bias: instead of looking at the big picture, hits and misses alike, we have...
- Good Science
"Strategies to address questionable statistical practices." by Janet D. Stemwedel June 27th, 2013 Scientific American If you have not yet read all you want to read about the wrongdoing of social psychologist Diederik Stapel, you may be interested in...
- We Haven't Wet Ourselves Yet--the Higgs Boson
"This Just in: Higgs Boson Still Boring" by Adam Mann March 6th, 2013 Wired Physicists from around the world are convening this week and next in Italy at the annual Rencontres de Moriond conference to discuss the latest in particle physics and cosmology....
- The Fine Art Of Critiquing An Academic Paper
"Researchers don't mean to exaggerate, but lots of things can distort findings" It's possible people are not bothering to report a negative result alongside positive ones they found by Ben Goldacre August 12th, 2011 guardian.co.uk ...
- "the Atom Smashers"--eccentric
Now I know why they ran this so late last night. "The Atom Smashers" was a study of eccentric physicists and the race to discover the Higgs Boson--overall somewhat boring. It is a small world of theoretical physicists and the question here, especially...
Philosophy
Scientific bias...a real problem
An epistemological question: Is there personal bias by scientists in analyzing a set of experiments? There is a recent book review [The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation by, Kent W Staley] at "physicsweb" by Bill Carithers discussing the interesting search for the sixth component of the Standard Model of particle physics at Fermilab. "I was particularly interested in Staley's examination of possible bias in the methodology and how the CDF collaboration dealt with it. When particle physicists try to find a particular set of events among the trillions of collisions that occur in an accelerator, they have to focus their search by ignoring data outside a certain range. In the case of the top quark, the CDF physicists knew that they could select their data in two different ways. Although both approaches were valid, the one they chose turned out to produce a stronger signal."--Bill Carithers
"The top quark: an unbiased tale"
Book:
The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation by, Kent W Staley
ISBN: 0521827108
And, in October of 2005 to cite one of many recent instances of scientists doing bad science was the dismissal of Luk Van Parijs of MIT who admitted "...to fabricating and falsifying research data in a published scientific paper and several manuscripts and grant applications."
"Five experts were asked to view results from some of these papers, which cast light on the detailed signals that prompt cells of the immune system to commit suicide. While they emphasise the need to see the underlying raw data, they say they have sufficient doubts about the authenticity of specific figures within the papers to merit an independent investigation into their authenticity."
Peer review is worthwhile and a necessary part of sound scientific methodology.
"MIT professor sacked for fabricating data"
- Ben Goldacre - What Doctors Don't Know About The Drugs They Prescribe
Richard Feynman once defined science as that which we do to avoid fooling ourselves. We humans are universally prone to the cognitive bias known as selection (or confirmation) bias: instead of looking at the big picture, hits and misses alike, we have...
- Good Science
"Strategies to address questionable statistical practices." by Janet D. Stemwedel June 27th, 2013 Scientific American If you have not yet read all you want to read about the wrongdoing of social psychologist Diederik Stapel, you may be interested in...
- We Haven't Wet Ourselves Yet--the Higgs Boson
"This Just in: Higgs Boson Still Boring" by Adam Mann March 6th, 2013 Wired Physicists from around the world are convening this week and next in Italy at the annual Rencontres de Moriond conference to discuss the latest in particle physics and cosmology....
- The Fine Art Of Critiquing An Academic Paper
"Researchers don't mean to exaggerate, but lots of things can distort findings" It's possible people are not bothering to report a negative result alongside positive ones they found by Ben Goldacre August 12th, 2011 guardian.co.uk ...
- "the Atom Smashers"--eccentric
Now I know why they ran this so late last night. "The Atom Smashers" was a study of eccentric physicists and the race to discover the Higgs Boson--overall somewhat boring. It is a small world of theoretical physicists and the question here, especially...