Scientific Fraud: Social Deviance or the Failure of Virtue?

Abstract

This article asks what it is about the nature of science that might explain the phenomenon of scientific fraud? What philosophical theory of scientific change might account for the existence of fraud and thus point the way toward a possible remedy? Three essential components comprise a scientific fraud. First, there must be at least one individual who is deceived. Second, there must be something which does the deceiving-a paper, a graph, a fossil, etc.-which carries or is the vehicle for the deceptive message. Third, there must be a model. Without a model, no other scientist would take the deception seriously, that is, accept the fake for the real thing. Recognizing the necessity of a model can help analysts locate more clearly the means of deception in fraud. Tests, procedures, ways of reporting evidence, and uses of graphs and diagrams, for example, are potential models. If a fraudulent scientist does not at least mimic the current standards and techniques of the discipline, then he or she has no hope whatsoever of success.' In the Piltdown fraud, someone seeded an archaeological site with bones and teeth that appeared to constitute evidence for an early human in Britain. These remains acted as a deceptive message modeled on other recognizable models, such as previous finds in Germany. This deceptive message had a quite specific group of signal-receivers: ethnocentric British scientists

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.