|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cmxc
Joined: 19 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shimokitazawa
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Culture of academic fraud pervasive in SNU |
 |
|
Welcome to Japan, Taiwan, Korea.
They all hate each other, but boy are they ever the same in many ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not cheating if you don't get caught; it's cunning.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| n=95 and a study done by a campus newspaper? might merit a follow up proper study, but nothing to get your knickers in a bunch over as it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PRagic wrote: |
| n=95 and a study done by a campus newspaper? might merit a follow up proper study, but nothing to get your knickers in a bunch over as it is. |
Blaming the messenger, eh?
I'm glad to see that even in sr's absence the excuses continue unabated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
When asked the reason for fudging the facts, 75 percent of survey participants said they did it "to make their experiment report match the theory."
...why I always chuckle when people post "science" as evidence. A lot of so called science all over the world, but especially in the USA, it totally made up.
Industry gives you money, you make the evidence match a theory that industry likes, you get more funding for more "science"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Rogers
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To quote a fameous politician "blah blah blah blah, science, science, science, bigger. And bigger is better." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is why Korean research and university degrees are considered worthless in other countries. It also highlights the inability to be truly innovative among many Koreans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jazzmaster wrote: |
| This is why Korean research and university degrees are considered worthless in other countries. It also highlights the inability to be truly innovative among many Koreans. |
Not completely worthless--it allows Koreans to go to overseas universities and pay full tuition there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singerdude
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
When asked the reason for fudging the facts, 75 percent of survey participants said they did it "to make their experiment report match the theory."
...why I always chuckle when people post "science" as evidence. A lot of so called science all over the world, but especially in the USA, it totally made up.
Industry gives you money, you make the evidence match a theory that industry likes, you get more funding for more "science"... |
Another idiotic post. You are the dumbest and the most obnoxious person on this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| singerdude wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
When asked the reason for fudging the facts, 75 percent of survey participants said they did it "to make their experiment report match the theory."
...why I always chuckle when people post "science" as evidence. A lot of so called science all over the world, but especially in the USA, it totally made up.
Industry gives you money, you make the evidence match a theory that industry likes, you get more funding for more "science"... |
Another idiotic post. You are the dumbest and the most obnoxious person on this site. |
Dear "Singer dude", the first two statements are incorrect, the third may be correct but is difficult to quantify without a survey, which you would certainly falsify. So you're at least 67% wrong, typical of chumps who make idiotic replies to my brilliant posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tob55
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| singerdude wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
When asked the reason for fudging the facts, 75 percent of survey participants said they did it "to make their experiment report match the theory."
...why I always chuckle when people post "science" as evidence. A lot of so called science all over the world, but especially in the USA, it totally made up.
Industry gives you money, you make the evidence match a theory that industry likes, you get more funding for more "science"... |
Another idiotic post. You are the dumbest and the most obnoxious person on this site. |
Dear "Singer dude", the first two statements are incorrect, the third may be correct but is difficult to quantify without a survey, which you would certainly falsify. So you're at least 67% wrong, typical of chumps who make idiotic replies to my brilliant posts. |
I have been doing research for several years now, and I have to say that while it sounds impossible for people to believe, what KN is saying is true. You can make numbers say whatever you want them to say either in support of, or in opposition to a given position. The fact that people are doctoring their study to support a claim can be easily checked out simple by running a few correlation tests on the samples and study data. Typically, the coefficient for quality internal integrity must be above .93 on the Pearson's Correlation in order for it to be considered valid. There are other measures of internal and external study validity, but most young researchers steer clear of them because they are anxious to get their name into print, and prefer to keep their research data 'private.' 
Cutting corners and adding a few thousandths of a percent can have significant impact on the results of a study and thereby support a claim, even though it is a false claim. SNU is NOT the only institution doing this, but unfortunately they have the light shining squarely in their eyes now, so it will be hard to remove doubt from people's minds concerning their innocence.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tob55 wrote: |
| I have been doing research for several years now, and I have to say that while it sounds impossible for people to believe, what KN is saying is true. You can make numbers say whatever you want them to say either in support of, or in opposition to a given position. The fact that people are doctoring their study to support a claim can be easily checked out simple by running a few correlation tests on the samples and study data. Typically, the coefficient for quality internal integrity must be above .93 on the Pearson's Correlation in order for it to be considered valid. There are other measures of internal and external study validity, but most young researchers steer clear of them because they are anxious to get their name into print, and prefer to keep their research data 'private.' |
Yup, bad-science relies on the fact that the vast majority of people will never check the details, and are not competent to do so anyhow. The more money is involved, and the more ambitious the researchers, the worse the science.
Say an article in the mass media says "researchers find that ___". There is typically no link to the actual research. If you actually find the research online and read it you may find a number of things 1) the mass media article interpretation does not match the discussion of results in the research, 2) the discussion of results in the research does not match the actual data, 3) the actually data is missing, or garbage. But most of the time you can't even GET the raw data, and since everything comes from that, you're essentially taking their word for it.
One of the most blatant examples of US bad-science is the government's claim that "eating fat causes heart attacks", and that "healthy grains" saves you from this fate. The science has always been made up (since 1950s). AFTER making these "scientific" claims, they spent a fortune trying to prove their theory right. The hilarious thing being that the data proved the exact opposite of their theory. So they just ignored the data, and spun it the way that fit their theory. A classic "science" move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greatunknown
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| tob55 wrote: |
| I have been doing research for several years now, and I have to say that while it sounds impossible for people to believe, what KN is saying is true. You can make numbers say whatever you want them to say either in support of, or in opposition to a given position. The fact that people are doctoring their study to support a claim can be easily checked out simple by running a few correlation tests on the samples and study data. Typically, the coefficient for quality internal integrity must be above .93 on the Pearson's Correlation in order for it to be considered valid. There are other measures of internal and external study validity, but most young researchers steer clear of them because they are anxious to get their name into print, and prefer to keep their research data 'private.' |
Yup, bad-science relies on the fact that the vast majority of people will never check the details, and are not competent to do so anyhow. The more money is involved, and the more ambitious the researchers, the worse the science.
Say an article in the mass media says "researchers find that ___". There is typically no link to the actual research. If you actually find the research online and read it you may find a number of things 1) the mass media article interpretation does not match the discussion of results in the research, 2) the discussion of results in the research does not match the actual data, 3) the actually data is missing, or garbage. But most of the time you can't even GET the raw data, and since everything comes from that, you're essentially taking their word for it.
One of the most blatant examples of US bad-science is the government's claim that "eating fat causes heart attacks", and that "healthy grains" saves you from this fate. The science has always been made up (since 1950s). AFTER making these "scientific" claims, they spent a fortune trying to prove their theory right. The hilarious thing being that the data proved the exact opposite of their theory. So they just ignored the data, and spun it the way that fit their theory. A classic "science" move. |
I think the problem is the governments that fund the scientists are more interested in politics than advancing research. You mentioned the governments health claims about eating grains being good and fat being bad. The researched disproved it so they spun it the other way. Who is "they"? The researchers? I think not.
When it comes to things like health, environment, illicit drugs. Scientists don't have an agenda. The politicians do. And, guess where the funding comes from?
And, of course there are frauds too. But they usually get discovered sooner or later and their lifes work discredited.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| great unknown wrote: |
| I think the problem is the governments that fund the scientists are more interested in politics than advancing research. You mentioned the governments health claims about eating grains being good and fat being bad. The researched disproved it so they spun it the other way. Who is "they"? The researchers? I think not. |
Yes I agree, in part.
Government funded "science" is obviously going to be trouble.
But on the other point that's not correct. The researchers absolutely have taken part in "spinning it" (they need money from industry for their research). Many have conducted research specifically for the purpose of making the data fit the current mass-excepted (yet wrong) theory. And of course the media adds more spin on top of the bad-research.
Of course there has also been real research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
