Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Academia is BROKEN! - Stanford President Scandal Explained" video.

12 paper out of a 30 years career of a top researcher and lab supervisor shall amount to like 0.5% of his total work. People make mistakes, everybody does. Once you get to the really high level, the workload just keep increasing and you're more prone to mistakes. And none of those 12 papers are breakthrough of any kind, not all papers are breakthrough. You can remove those 12 papers and his breakthrough work will still be as good. You need to go do real STEM research, it's not as easy as whatever research you're doing. To verify every paper is insanely lengthy of time and usually impossible to do when you're a supervisor of a big lab. And even the publishers can't spot the difference even though they're the ones responsible for verifying shows some difficulty on how hard it is. The guy has done some work that you will probably never be able to achieve in your lifetime. Brandishing him a "corrupt" individuals is just extremely ignorant. If 5% of your work are falsified and 95% of the rest are outstanding, does it make you incompetent? Please.
2
12 paper out of a 30 years career of a top researcher and lab supervisor shall amount to like 0.5% of his total work. People make mistakes, everybody does. Once you get to the really high level, the workload just keep increasing and you're more prone to mistakes. And none of those 12 papers are breakthrough of any kind, not all papers are breakthrough. You can remove those 12 papers and his breakthrough work will still be as good. You need to go do real STEM research, it's not as easy as whatever research you're doing. To verify every paper is insanely lengthy of time and usually impossible to do when you're a supervisor of a big lab. And even the publishers can't spot the difference even though they're the ones responsible for verifying shows some difficulty on how hard it is. The guy has done some incredible work that are proven to be real. Brandishing him a "corrupt" individuals is just extremely ignorant. If 0.5% of your work are falsified and 99.5% of the rest are outstanding, does it make you incompetent? Please.
2
A blatant disrespect out of your part is not saying that even though these 12 papers might have been falsified, there's no evidence of any kind that his other few hundreds of papers are wrong or falsified. Scientists make mistakes, like anybody else. To judge on entire career based on less than 5% of their work is just insane.
1
You need to understand that 12 papers out of his career is like 0.5% of his total work. He's still a very accomplished scientist and have done incredible stuff. A person comprises both the bad and the good.
1
12 paper out of a 30 years career of a top researcher and lab supervisor shall amount to like 5% of his total work. People make mistakes, everybody does. Once you get to the really high level, the workload just keep increasing and you're more prone to mistakes. And none of those 12 papers are breakthrough of any kind, not all papers are breakthrough. You can remove those 12 papers and his breakthrough work will still be as good. You need to go do real STEM research, it's not as easy as whatever research you're doing. To verify every paper is insanely lengthy of time and usually impossible to do when you're a supervisor of a big lab. And even the publishers can't spot the difference even though they're the ones responsible for verifying shows some difficulty on how hard it is. The guy has done some incredible work that are proven to be real. Brandishing him a "corrupt" individuals is just extremely ignorant. If 5% of your work are falsified and 95% of the rest are outstanding, does it make you incompetent? Please.
1
@VincentNN First of all, there's nothing worth covering up here. Those 12 papers are insignificant as it can be, you can remove them from his resume and nobody will spot any differences. The most notable papers he have published gave birth to an entire new field and has been proven right over and over again with subsequent results by other researchers. If he doesn't know that the data was manipulated then of course he has to deny it. If you have a 30 year career at this level, you will have forgotten about a lot of papers that you have wrote or participated in. That's how the human brain works. A supervisor doesn't dip his hand into all papers of his lab, he's a supervisor, his job is to make sure that the research is "sane" and functional. None of the results falsified reported any kind of breakthrough to a point that it's easily noticeable. Like in a criminal case, if you can't prove motive and intent, you have no case. Is it negligence, probably. Is it corrupt, absolutely not. Because there's no intent or motive
1
@JohnTheRevelat0r I don't think any federal funding that gave the grant to this guy did it for those 12 papers, pal. He had some breakthrough phenomenal work way before those 12 papers. It's simple mathematics.
1
12 paper out of a 30 years career of a top researcher and lab supervisor shall amount to like 0.5% of his total work. People make mistakes, everybody does. Once you get to the really high level, the workload just keep increasing and you're more prone to mistakes. And none of those 12 papers are breakthrough of any kind, not all papers are breakthrough. You can remove those 12 papers and his breakthrough work will still be as good. You need to go do real STEM research, it's not as easy as whatever research you're doing. To verify every paper is insanely lengthy of time and usually impossible to do when you're a supervisor of a big lab. And even the publishers can't spot the difference even though they're the ones responsible for verifying shows some difficulty on how hard it is. The guy has done some incredible work that are proven to be real. Brandishing him a "corrupt" individuals is just extremely ignorant. If 0.5% of your work are falsified and 99.5% of the rest are outstanding, does it make you incompetent? Please.
1
@liberality First of all, go study real science. It's unverifiable because it's extremely hard to do so. Any kind of meaningful breakthrough science can only be done through proprietary break through. For example, if somebody in the world grow a crystal that only them having the ability to grow. It can be verified, but that will take months to do so, it will take money as well. Money that most publishers do not have. The ability to review and understand as well as verified every single published work is impossible, because one field has many subfields. His lab alone may conduct research on 7 different subfields inside one large field, therefore requiring 7 experts to thoroughly verify and nobody has that kind of money at one single lab. Especially if the prize of verifying one paper thoroughly is the same as verifying them to a certain standard not thoroughly but acceptable. Why don't you go learn some math? You got 12 papers discredited out of possibly 300 he wrote and participated in, including a few very significant that are proven to be true beyond any doubt. That's like less than 5% . Why don't you go learn some math? The harder the field you're in, the harder it is to verify. It's the principle of correlation.
1
@liberality If just anybody can verify your work than you probably work in some kind of dead last proprietary field. Because it's so common that just anybody can give an opinion. A lab manufactured a device that only such lab has put an effort into researching. To verify such research, you need to be able to replicate such a device with such specific manufacturing procedures, which nobody has because it's called proprietary and even if you can replicate it, there are dozens of papers being sent in at the same time. Nobody has the resources to replicate dozens of different devices. Yes, you can contact them and ask for their results and their samples but that's not going to cut it because it's called proprietary for a reason. So go learn some math, pal. It's not that it can't be thoroughly verified, it's that it's not feasible to thoroughly verify each one.
1
@liberality Countless stuff in the world that you're using is not verifiable, countless stuff are theories, predictions, models that are agreed upon via an acceptable standard. Clear on that? Simple example, growing a specific crystal or a new material takes 2 months. When you send that to a publisher, what publisher has the resources to grow a specific crystal or material with that kind of standard for 2 months to verify the results? And that's just one paper, if 20 leading universities send 20 different kinds of materials and results, and you only have one machine, are you going to wait 40 months to verify all of them before deciding which to publish? Scientific credibility is a huge, huge factor. There was no incentive for this specific scientist to falsify results, those papers are the least important ones of his career.
1
@liberality No, pal. Seemingly you don't understand how the real world works. Go learn some math and watch less Hollywood movies, maybe you'll learn a thing or two. We don't live in the world of sugar and spice and everything nice where all the technical facilities are the same everywhere. Journals are created by humans and their editor boards consist of human beings, they are limited by human limitations just like all human beings on Earth. Again, go learn some math. You fake science people disgust me.
1
@liberality That's a shock, I thought Springer only have esteemed publications on really esteemed fields. Apparently Springers also dip their fingers into the likes of you who apparently don't do any real science. Little buddy, the most significant fraud in history happened at the most prestigious journal. It's the Schon scandal and the papers published in Nature and Science magazines. Schon reported breakthrough experimental results on semiconductor that cannot be replicated by anybody in the world but there's no way of noticing that his results were falsified until he slipped up and used the same data in one paper in another paper. So basically the only reason they caught Schon cheating was because he made a rookie mistakes while cheating. The reason there's no way of telling whether Schon faked his data or not, is because no experiments anywhere are identical to another. That's the nature of the real world, everything follows a normal distribution, there are errors in the experimental process, no matter how small can lead to an unsuccessful experiment. That's what happens when you do real science, especially in really delicate field such as semiconductor physics or quantum physics. Why don't you go learn some math? Whatever your deal with Springer was, it must belong to the least esteemed field, because you seemingly don't know the basic that every serious scientist knows. The ability to fully understand and verify something is getting harder and harder everyday till the point that's not feasible to fully understand everything. Research are getting more and more specialized that unless you're doing the exact same sub field, you won't be able to understand it fully. That makes the authentication process as difficult as ever and as meaningless as ever. Because it's impossible to fully authenticate something. That's real science, it's hard and it's challenging and it's prone to mistakes. It's unlike your nonsense where it's sugar and spice and everything nice. Publications make mistakes all the time, because they're humans, their stamp of authority is getting more and more meaningless by the day because they don't have the resources to replicate all the cutting edge research around the world on huge scale. Like I pointed out, an experimental result of a new kind of crystal that took 2 months to grow, 20 of them are submitted at the same time for 20 different kind of crystal. Are you going to take 40 months to grow all 20 different kind to verify all of them? Not to mention the error in growing them in which the know how is not widely known? And you can't get more machine because one machine is insanely expensive and most researching centers only have one of them?
1
@liberality I don't care how global your organization is, it must dwell in some kind of inferior field of nonsense. Not real science by any means. Fully authenticating, meaning replicating each experiment and result in literally impossible. That's real, because that's real time, resources, and even knowledge limitations. To fully understand and authenticate something means to be able to replicate it, and there are too few people at those publications to ever do that, because one paper nowadays in STEM are the combined work of 3-4 people with expertise in 3-4 different sub field in a large field. So go learn some math and stop spreading lies that violate the rules of reality.
1