Re: JSH: Fraud question is pertinent


jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
Keith Ramsay wrote:
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
|jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
|
|> The best explanation is that fraud in mathematics does not get
|> reported, not that it doesn't happen.
|
|The best explanation is that it doesn't work very well.

Why?

(1) If your claimed result is interesting, people will read your paper
and if it's complete babbling nonsense, your reputation --> 0.

(2) If on the other hand it has a flaw but isn't nonsense, it still
won't do you much good unless you can fix it.

(3) If your claimed result is so boring no one cares enough to really
read your paper, including the referee, then it does nothing for you
either. Do it enough and you could get a reputation as the guy who
publishes results so boring its amazing they can get into print.

(4) Even if you are relying on people not actually reading your papers,
what if they do? You could be up for tenure at The University of
Southern North Dakota at Hoople, on the basis of a long if not
impressive publications list, and then someone goes and actually looks
at the papers. Now you are sunk.

(5) Getting crap papers claiming crap results into print would be a
major pain. Not only that, the referee at least, one hopes, to is going
to look at them, and then you start accumumating a list of people who
think you are an idiot. Even if the world at large doesn't see these
crap papers, this is going to hurt.

(6) Who can you turn to for references? Nobody on the research side.
How are you going to get a cushy post-doc and tenure that way? It's
mostly word of mouth anyway.

Again and again I see this behavior from the math community where
someone just makes a claim with no support as if that's all that
matters which fits in with a society that works by consensus.

You don't "see this behavior" since you aren't a part of that community
and haven't a clue what goes on it it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It is sublime
    ... as one can see by reading their papers. ... not provide the explanation to me. ... 50% of its predictions are, more or less, accurate. ... I see that you failed to grasp the concept of a scientific theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: It is sublime
    ... as one can see by reading their papers. ... not provide the explanation to me. ... Please present this evidence to us. ... 50% of its predictions are, more or less, accurate. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Panorama - When cops kill
    ... If he had published any papers on the ... present it to the prosecuting authorities to then prepare a research paper ... you heard Lewinsky's explanation as to how this ... The CPS made the decision to put the Stanley two before a court for a trial. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: It is sublime
    ... as one can see by reading their papers. ... not provide the explanation to me. ... You know the evidence for anthropogenic climate change exists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics
    ... But, refutation by other means such as internet forum, ... >>has limited impact because it the refereed journals are the official arbiter ... The vast majority of papers accepted by mathematical journals ... >have been checked, not necessarily conscientiously, by a single referee. ...
    (sci.math)