Scientist who claimed the discovery of room temperature superconductor faked data

www.thehindu.com...

A team from Nature, through court documents, has found that Ranga Dias, professor at University of Rochester who had touted the discovery of room-temperature superconductor in March last year, committed data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. The publication found an investigation report in court documents that stated the physicist had committed scientific misconduct

Academic corruption?! Who would have thought of it?! Sometime ago it was widely accepted academics and scientists are moral and law abiding people but things have changed since then quite a lot and it was always a false perception people had.

The university is planning to fire Professor Dias and I am wondering if there should be further consequences for academics/scientists who fake data and mislead other scientists and the public. It can have devastating consequences for example in the field of medicine and elsewhere. There have been cases of researchers who have been jailed because they faked data and for their academic misconduct.

edit on 12-4-2024 by Consvoli because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Consvoli

Academic corruption?! Who would have thought of it?! Sometime ago it was widely accepted that academics and scientists are moral and law abiding people but it looks things have changed quite a lot and it was always a false perception people had.

What the hell are you saying? That men lie? GTFO

originally posted by: Astrocometus
a reply to: Consvoli

Academic corruption?! Who would have thought of it?! Sometime ago it was widely accepted that academics and scientists are moral and law abiding people but it looks things have changed quite a lot and it was always a false perception people had.

What the hell are you saying? That men lie? GTFO

The outrage, gasp. In the mean time scientists are faking financial data to bum hump you into beliving 56% interest on a loan saves the planet... In other news "King Charles Entertains Millions with a piss hap visiting mums tomb"

originally posted by: Astrocometus
a reply to: Consvoli

Academic corruption?! Who would have thought of it?! Sometime ago it was widely accepted that academics and scientists are moral and law abiding people but it looks things have changed quite a lot and it was always a false perception people had.

What the hell are you saying? That men lie? GTFO

I remember the 'safe and effective' claims made by scientists so I don't think they usually lie.

a reply to: Brotherman

Science has never not been bought and paid for by those who
run this place. Just like everything else they have their psychotic
fingers in it. And then they pull the typical doe see doe. Everyone
else is lying. POS.

Anyone who doesn't know this lives in a fantasy world.

Yup!

And they caught it. Why? Because THE SCIENCE didn't hold up.

So you were saying again?

a reply to: Consvoli

a reply to: Consvoli

He will get fired. Havard will hire him with a raise to boot.

And this is why I believe modern science to be a modern religion, maybe even a cult?

Mind you, I define religion as dogma and ritual.

I define spiritual as the act of growing in one's personal spiritual beliefs.

I try to be spiritual, not religious.

Hopefully, that makes sense.

Now to the meat of this post.

Since the 1950s SciFi movies, scientists have been portrayed as moral, unbiased, and the only ones who can solve our problems. With Science.

Jump forward 80 years, and here we are.

The masses who don't reason or think for themselves, believe whatever "science" says. They don't research it themselves, they don't look at all sides, just the side that confirms their beliefs. It is nothing more than faith in the scientists.

Then you have those like many of us on ATS, we read and research on our own. We listen to all sides. When we disagree with their facts, we are called many things, including conspiracy theorists.

Which is used in a negative way, so that those who might entertain our statements, immediately dismiss us and our beliefs as crazy and not listen.

I don't know why, for the life of me, why most in power want to deceive us. What is their gain?

We have to remember, and stress to others, scientists are no different than us.

They have emotions, beliefs, bias', and bosses.

They want to keep their jobs so they need to keep grant money rolling in. So like every other human, they will massage the data to get the desired result. Universities get the grant money, scientists keep their job.

Some may have done something on campus, and to keep their job, they go with the flow.

In this age of the catholic scandals, people now see leaders of the church are not perfect.

What is it going to take, for the same to happen to the leaders of the Church of Science?

And if people actually end up realizing this, where do they go when they are disillusioned?

a reply to: theatreboy

The masses who don't reason or think for themselves, believe whatever "science" says. They don't research it themselves, they don't look at all sides, just the side that confirms their beliefs. It is nothing more than faith in the scientists.

Wow I'm pretty sure of the youth involved in what you posted.

All I can say is I'm impressed.

One of the leading causes of fakery or lying in science is the ego of the perpetrator.

Human beings lie, and always have. Being a learned person of science does not exonerate.

Many scientists have built up a wall of credibility around them based on what was once accepted as truth. Then, when a discovery threatens their beliefs, and their credibility is threatened, they refuse to admit they were mistaken and many times lie about certain tests and results to try and outlast what they consider a personal assault against them.

History is full of examples.

It is an unfortunate example of human behavior, and why proving something in science is so rigorous.

originally posted by: charlyv
One of the leading causes of fakery or lying in science is the ego of the perpetrator.

Human beings lie, and always have. Being a learned person of science does not exonerate.

Many scientists have built up a wall of credibility around them based on what was once accepted as truth. Then, when a discovery threatens their beliefs, and their credibility is threatened, they refuse to admit they were mistaken and many times lie about certain tests and results to try and outlast what they consider a personal assault against them.

History is full of examples.

It is an unfortunate example of human behavior, and why proving something in science is so rigorous.

Very similar to my view.

Ordinary people have always trusted and believed scientists and doctors but that has changed in the last few years. It was believed scientists are moral and they can't cheat or tell lies but it was a false perception.

a reply to: Consvoli

One of the reasons why "Peer Review" has, historically, been such an important part of the acedemic/scientific milieu.

well, it would be nice to know what he plagiarized because that was likely the real information. This misinformation move would hurt the real conclusions if solid data gets squashed because this nut did his part to put doubt in the mix by trying to become rich and famous for a discovery.

a reply to: Justoneman

Often sensible aren't you?

Mentioning the real issues at hand, the tampering of information...

He should be probably be made an example of but knowing reality he probably had some reason or another to do what he did and it would only be sensible to take that into account. The world is stupid enough without overreacting to stressed people.

Sometimes though thick people expect everyone else to be as thick as them or worse, maybe a benefit of doubt can be given. Either way that's a funny read for the rest of us!

a reply to: Consvoli

Academic corruption?! Who would have thought of it?! Sometime ago it was widely accepted academics and scientists are moral and law abiding people but things have changed since then quite a lot and it was always a false perception people had.

I'm shocked, I say.

Shocked.

😨

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Yup!

And they caught it. Why? Because THE SCIENCE didn't hold up.

So you were saying again?

a reply to: Consvoli

Exactly. I'm glad a few people get this point even if most of the comments in this thread seem to miss it.

There's a saying that scientists don't trust other scientists, they trust science. Meaning people, even scientists, can make mistakes, or in this case, fraud. So the people in science should not be trusted without question, however the process of science, confirming claims and attempting to reproduce experiments, is an important part of the scientific process which will eventually weed out those committing fraud or simply making non-fraudulent mistakes in their work.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Yup!

And they caught it. Why? Because THE SCIENCE didn't hold up.

So you were saying again?

a reply to: Consvoli

Exactly. I'm glad a few people get this point even if most of the comments in this thread seem to miss it.

There's a saying that scientists don't trust other scientists, they trust science. Meaning people, even scientists, can make mistakes, or in this case, fraud. So the people in science should not be trusted without question, however the process of science, confirming claims and attempting to reproduce experiments, is an important part of the scientific process which will eventually weed out those committing fraud or simply making non-fraudulent mistakes in their work.

Do you trust 'the science' ??

Real science corrects itself but 'the science' is a different story altogether.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Consvoli

One of the reasons why "Peer Review" has, historically, been such an important part of the acedemic/scientific milieu.

Unless peer review is corrupted too!
Are you sure the peer review process is not corrupted or subjected to external pressures, bias, or even politicalized.

originally posted by: Consvoli
Do you trust 'the science' ??

Real science corrects itself but 'the science' is a different story altogether.

That seems like an odd question to post in a thread where you showed the scientist couldn't be trusted, but "the science" worked to out the fraud. It seems like you're posting a thread showing "the science" worked, and then you're questioning if it works, am I misunderstanding you? Strange question.

Now, does it always work immediately? No, it can take some time, but this is not an isolated case by any means where scientists made mistakes or fraud and the science corrected the mistakes or fraud. One of the most spectacular to me was when a prestigious group of scientists posted a paper about neutrinos going faster than light, maybe a decade ago. It took over a year to figure out that result wasn't real because they later discovered they had problems with their measuring equipment, it wasn't intentional fraud.

So in pure science like that it works, can you show me an example where it doesn't eventually fix the problems as happened with this fraud? You've shown an example where it does work and I can show many more. The fact you can I can communicate on the internet using computers shows the science works, all that technology is based on science.

What I don't trust is big pharma, because there's just way too much money involved to bias results in the favor of big pharma making more money, but I don't consider that a pure science field. There's just not that much money in faking or erroneously measuring the speed of neutrinos or in faking room temperature superconductor data like there is in big pharma.

a reply to: Astrocometus

Typical DOE paper?
Like using probability lenses to operate at quantum dimensions?
I've seen some of those that look like flat earth explanations.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Consvoli
Do you trust 'the science' ??

Real science corrects itself but 'the science' is a different story altogether.

That seems like an odd question to post in a thread where you showed the scientist couldn't be trusted, but "the science" worked to out the fraud. It seems like you're posting a thread showing "the science" worked, and then you're questioning if it works, am I misunderstanding you? Strange question.

Now, does it always work immediately? No, it can take some time, but this is not an isolated case by any means where scientists made mistakes or fraud and the science corrected the mistakes or fraud. One of the most spectacular to me was when a prestigious group of scientists posted a paper about neutrinos going faster than light, maybe a decade ago. It took over a year to figure out that result wasn't real because they later discovered they had problems with their measuring equipment, it wasn't intentional fraud.

So in pure science like that it works, can you show me an example where it doesn't eventually fix the problems as happened with this fraud? You've shown an example where it does work and I can show many more. The fact you can I can communicate on the internet using computers shows the science works, all that technology is based on science.

What I don't trust is big pharma, because there's just way too much money involved to bias results in the favor of big pharma making more money, but I don't consider that a pure science field. There's just not that much money in faking or erroneously measuring the speed of neutrinos or in faking room temperature superconductor data like there is in big pharma.

I think you have misunderstood me because I am referring to 'the science'. It's what we have witnessed in the covid blunder campaign but it existed long before covid came around. You got it right at the end when you say you don't trust big pharma which means mistakes or fraud are unlikely to be corrected. And how do we know it's only this gentleman who has faked data given that academic is often governed by cliques and politics.