{"id":27873,"date":"2015-06-03T14:39:19","date_gmt":"2015-06-03T12:39:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=27873"},"modified":"2021-10-17T17:47:57","modified_gmt":"2021-10-17T15:47:57","slug":"lonesta-verita-sulla-disonesta","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2015\/06\/03\/lonesta-verita-sulla-disonesta\/","title":{"rendered":"L'onesta verit\u00e0 sulla disonest\u00e0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anche in Brasile, si \u00e8 parlato del paper ritrattato di LaCour & Green sulla capacit\u00e0 di persuasione degli attivisti politici gay, dice Richard van Noorden<\/a> di Nature<\/em> che sonda le opinioni degli “esperti” in disonest\u00e0 scientifica:<\/p>\n

The world\u2019s largest gathering of specialists in research misconduct kicked off on 31 May in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, shortly after science\u2019s latest scandal broke. On the evening before the start of sessions on how to diagnose and remedy ethical faults in research, delegates to the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity sipped caipirinhas, Brazil\u2019s national cocktail \u2014 and swapped views on what could be gleaned from a flawed political-science study.<\/em><\/p>\n

Il programma<\/a> della conferenza \u00e8 spaventoso. Comunque quest’anno c ‘\u00e8 anche questo:<\/p>\n

The new Italian guidelines on research integrity in the European context<\/a>, <\/strong>presentation\u00a0Ilja Richard Pavone<\/a> <\/em><\/p>\n

link aggiunti.\u00a0Al CNR, le linee guida dovrebbero essere queste<\/a>\u00a0(pp. 7-8, il resto riguarda corruzione, abusi di atti d’ufficio, conflitti d’interesse).<\/p>\n

Mmm<\/a><\/strong>… conviene (ri)leggere l’intervento di Dan Ari\u00e9ly alla conferenza dell’anno scorso, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty<\/a>“.<\/p>\n

Dall’editoriale<\/strong> <\/a>di Nature:<\/em><\/p>\n

Some scientists do cheat, of course, just as some scientists drive too fast, take drugs and are unfaithful to their spouses. The reasons are complex and varied. With some exceptions, scientific organizations do not engage with the issue of misconduct as seriously as they should. Why would they, when public confidence and (moral and financial) support remains so high?<\/em>
\n… although high-profile fraud makes headlines, a broader and more common set of unappealing behaviours \u2014 from corner-cutting to data-juggling \u2014 lie under the surface. Convention says that a tiny minority of scientists cheats, yet academics and researchers frequently make the case that irregularities are widespread. A 2014 survey of hundreds of economists, for example, found that 94% admitted to having engaged in at least one \u201cunaccepted\u201d research practice<\/em> \u00a0(S. Necker\u00a0Res. Policy\u00a0<\/i>43,\u00a01747\u20131759; 2014<\/a>).<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

A proposito di quelli che barano, Mark Richardson,\u00a0Zeke Hausfather,\u00a0Dana A. Nuccitelli,\u00a0Ken Rice\u00a0e\u00a0John P. Abraham pubblicano<\/a><\/p>\n

Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results<\/em><\/p>\n

una demolizione delle vecchie bufale<\/a>\u00a0che\u00a0Sua Signoria Lord Christopher Monckton e di Willie “Big Oil & Coal<\/a>” Soon avevano riciclato su una rivista cinese per conto dello Heartland Institute.<\/p>\n

Abstract appetitoso:<\/p>\n

Monckton of Brenchley et al. (Sci Bull 60:122\u2013135,\u00a02015<\/a><\/cite>) (hereafter called M15) use a simple energy balance model to estimate climate response. <\/em><\/p>\n