Why do scientists lie?
Profit: Sometimes there's money in it -- a lot of money. This may be why, according to Fanelli's report, "surveys conducted among clinical, medical and pharmacological researchers appeared to yield higher rates of misconduct than surveys in other fields".
Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it.
Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job.
Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he's wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent your opponent's paper from being published.
Ideology: Many feel that if a cause is worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.
How is it justified?
1. Intellectual liberals believe that human beings are fundamentally good and that they are constantly evolving into something better. Moreover, they believe that intellectuals (i.e., themselves) are the best and wisest of humans and therefore the predestined leaders of mankind.
2. They also tend to believe that there are simple and drastic solutions to all of the world's problems. These solutions generally entail the creation of an all-powerful world government, staffed mainly with intellectuals.
3. Therefore, they tend to unquestioningly follow a charismatic leader who proposes sweeping reforms that will lead to a better world, with the intellectuals themselves in line for key positions.
4. They also tend to become bigots, in the Chestertonian sense of being unable to imagine any sane and honest person disagreeing with them. Therefore, all their opponents must be fools or liars. Moreover, the public -- the "common man" -- is a vast mob of idiots who must be manipulated for their own good.
5. Therefore, bending the truth a little so as to make it more blatantly obvious to the limited mentality of the public, or silencing the wrongheaded opposition so as not to confuse the simpleminded public, or crying "wolf" about a supposedly dire emergency so as to galvanize the lethargic public into immediate drastic action, are legitimate and even noble tactics.
Read the whole article here.
To contrast and compare, Religious leaders are in very much the same position. In fact, you can almost insert "theologian" for "scientist" in the article and it would still make sense.
The difference for me, is that I believe that I'm naturally a sinner. Because I am prone to corruption (like everybody else), I need checks and balances to prevent my corruption. If my power and influence was unchecked and unaccountable, I'd soon be going down the exact same road.
No comments:
Post a Comment