Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You don't need dishonest researchers to see this effect. You just need researchers who care, personally and/or professionally, about the impact of their work.

I'm sure Mr. Spock is a professor somewhere. If you talk to real working scientists, you'll find very few Spocks. Also, there are not a lot of Victorian gentleman-scientists; they all need to be funded...



Sure, but my point is that some scientists are more trustworthy than others, just like some newspapers are more trustworthy.


Eh, the idea of "trust" gets into non-quantifiable territory very quickly. Further, your analogy with newspapers is, quite frankly, not good. I would say that generally speaking, if a newspaper consistently confirms one's biases it is more likely to be deemed "trustworthy" and vice-versa with "non-trustworthy" newspapers.


No thats simply not true. Is a random personal blog as trustworthy as the globe and mail?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: