Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 2, pp 291–310 | Cite as

On fraud

  • Liam Kofi Bright
Article

Abstract

Preferably scientific investigations would promote true rather than false beliefs. The phenomenon of fraud represents a standing challenge to this veritistic ideal. When scientists publish fraudulent results they knowingly enter falsehoods into the information stream of science. Recognition of this challenge has prompted calls for scientists to more consciously adopt the veritistic ideal in their own work. In this paper I argue against such promotion of the veritistic ideal. It turns out that a sincere desire on the part of scientists to see the truth propagated may well promote more fraud rather than less.

Keywords

Philosophy of science Social epistemology Decision theory Fraud Social structure of science Veritism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks for helpful comments to Kevin Zollman, Carole Lee, Remco Heesen, Konstantin Genin, Jennifer Saul, Yuzuko Nakamura, Daniel Malinsky, Danielle Wenner, and anonymous reviewers for the Formal Epistemology Workshop and Philosophical Studies.

References

  1. Ben-Yehuda, N. (1986). Deviance in science—Towards a criminology of science. British Journal of Criminology, 26(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  2. Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1983). Betrayers of the truth. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. P. (2013). Policing epistemic communities. Episteme, 10(4), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80(3), 891–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Policy Research, 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  9. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1898). The study of negro problems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 11(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10(6), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labour. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kummerfeld, E., & Zollman, K. J. (2015). Conservativism and the scientific state of nature. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axv013.
  16. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Merton, R. K. (1968). Behavior patterns of scientists. American Scientist, 57(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  18. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Muldoon, R. (2013). Diversity and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empricism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sovacol, B. K. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or the inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strevens, M. (2006). The role of the Matthew effect in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(2), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). The epistemic benefits of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zuckerman, H. (1988). The sociology of science. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 511–574). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBaker Hall 161, Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations