I'm interested in the phenomenon whereby researchers find it more acceptable to omit results from a report (error of omission), or fail to publish a null result, than to make up data (error of commission). Is there an accepted term for this?
-
-
Ooh , that’s a nice analogy
-
Might be useful to think about mens rea then (nothing to do with butts, I promise
)? -
I have lawyer relatives but hadn’t occurred to me to look at it this way. Thanks!
-
I'm really into law as a lay person, as a comp modeller. I like how it's a (semi) formal system for something outside science. It's like bizzaro comp modelling, or you can say comp modelling is like bizarro law-making.
-
Concepts that are important/useful to talk about the world (scientific or otherwise) have already been given cool names within legalese & often are more accessible than same/similar phrases we have in formal modelling. Like "spirit vs letter of the law", a great concept/phrase!
-
Or the idea/concept that even though we have laws (= formalisms) we still need to discuss things on a case-by-case basis (trials in law, discussion in science and life generally); the idea that laws/formalisms can be wrong even if super formal/mathematical; and more.
-
The idea that the people enforcing the laws (cops) could be awful while the laws could be OK.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Woah! You led me to this book. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232225/ … It is dated and the idea that “it is not practical (or necessary) to reconstruct all the observations and theoretical constructs that go into an investigation” is
. (Ignore if irrelevant
) -
Indeed, looks very important/relevant.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is to say, the difference is something we, in Western and Westernised society, are taught as being meaningful IMHO — one that matters a lot when understanding and ascribing blame (if any). I could be misunderstanding the issue here, but I think it's what you say Richard too?
-
I was thinking that an action that *can* be defended (but may have been the result of motivated reasoning) is more “acceptable” than one for which there is no defence, because of the uncertainty. I was naming the wrong thing
-
A sort of benefit of the doubt, I guess? But that’s still not naming the phenomenon, it is ascribing a cause.
-
I have seen research in the past on how people think it's different if you hit (cheat) a golf ball with your foot than if you pick it up, right? Ring any bells?
-
A trolley problem version of research misconduct?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.