Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:45:57.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Do Scientists Lie?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2021

Liam Kofi Bright
Liam Kofi Bright*
Affiliation:
LSE
*
liamkbright@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It's natural to think of scientists as truth seekers, people driven by an intense curiosity to understand the natural world. Yet this picture of scientists and scientific inquiry sits uncomfortably with the reality and prevalence of scientific fraud. If one wants to get at the truth about nature, why lie? Won't that just set inquiry back, as people pursue false leads? To understand why this occurs – and what can be done about it – we need to understand the social structures scientists work within, and how some of the institutions which enable science to be such a successful endeavour all things considered, also abet and encourage fraud.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 89: How Do We Know? The Social Dimension of Knowledge , May 2021 , pp. 117 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Melissa S., Ronning, Emily A., De Vries, Raymond, and Martinson, Brian C., ‘Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists' subscription to norms of research’. The Journal of Higher Education 81 3 (2010), 366–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, The ethics of identity (Princeton University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, Liam Kofi, ‘On fraud’ Philosophical Studies 174 (2017), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, Liam Kofi, ‘Du Bois’ democratic defence of the value free ideal’ Synthese 195 (2018), 2227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, William and Wade, Nicholas, Betrayers of the Truth (Simon & Schuster, 1982).Google Scholar
Bruner, Justin P, ‘Policing epistemic communities’ Episteme 10 (2013), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Jonathan R. and Cole, Stephen, Social stratification in science (University of Chicago Press, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather E, ‘Scientific integrity in a politicized world’, Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science: proceedings of the fourteenth international congress. (2014) 253–68.Google Scholar
WEB Du Bois, ‘The study of the Negro problems’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1898), 1–23.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesen, Remco, ‘Communism and the Incentive to Share in Science’, Philosophy of Science 84 (2017), 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesen, Remco, ‘Why the reward structure of science makes reproducibility problems inevitable’, The journal of philosophy 115 (2018), 661–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesen, Remco, Questionable Research Practices and Credit in Academic Careers (2020) MS.Google Scholar
Heesen, Remco and Bright, Liam Kofi, ‘Is peer review a good idea?’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett and Bruner, Justin P., ‘The problem of intransigently biased agents’, Philosophy of Science 82.5 (2015), 956–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, Bryce and Bright, Liam Kofi, ‘Collective responsibility and fraud in scientific communities’, The Routledge Handbook of Collective Responsibility (2020), 358–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip, ‘The division of cognitive labor’, The Journal of Philosophy 87 (1990), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaCroix, Travis, Anders Geil, and Cailin O'Connor, ‘The dynamics of retraction in epistemic networks’, Philosophy of Science forthcoming.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve, Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, (Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Lee, Carole J., The Reference Class Problem for Credit Valuation in Science, (2018) MS.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Lee, The Scientific Attitude, (MIT Press, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K., ‘A note on science and democracy’, Journal of the Legal & Political Sociology (1942), 115–26.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K., ‘Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science.’ American sociological review 22 (1957), 635–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K., ‘The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered’, Science 159.3810 (1968), 56–63/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K., ‘Behavior patterns of scientists’, The American Scholar (1969), 197–225.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosek, Brian A., Spies, Jeffrey R., and Motyl, Matt, ‘Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 7.6 (2012), 615–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, Naomi and Conway, Erik M., Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming (Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011).Google Scholar
Partha, Dasgupta and David, Paul A., ‘Toward a new economics of science’, Research policy 23.5 (1994), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, Manuela Fernández, ‘Commercialization and the limits of well-ordered science’, Perspectives on Science 23.2 (2015), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Eugenie Samuel, Plastic fantastic Vol. 1 (Macmillan, 2009).Google Scholar
Romero, Felipe, ‘Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 60 (2016), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romero, Felipe, ‘Who should do replication labor?’, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1.4 (2018), 516–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Joseph P., Nelson, Leif D., and Simonsohn, Uri, ‘False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant’, Psychological science 22.11 (2011), 1359–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephan, Paula E., ‘The economics of science.’ Journal of Economic literature, 34.3 (1996), 1199–1235.Google Scholar
Strevens, Michael, ‘The role of the priority rule in science’, The Journal of Philosophy 100.2 (2003), 55–79/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyhe, John Van, ‘Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?’, Notes and records of the Royal Society 61.2 (2007), 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, James Owen, O'Connor, Cailin, and Bruner, Justin P.. ‘How to beat science and influence people: policymakers and propaganda in epistemic networks’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71.4 (2020). 1157–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Harriet, ‘Stratification in American science’, Sociological Inquiry 40.2 (1970), 235–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin JS, ‘The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity’, Erkenntnis (2010), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin JS, ‘The credit economy and the economic rationality of science’, The Journal of Philosophy 115.1 (2018), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, Kevin JS, The scientific ponzi scheme, (2019) MS.Google Scholar