Rust Buckets: Not your father's Navy

[DesertWolf101]

I will leave the discussions on what the Department of Defense should do to real life, but a couple of wider things to note that may be of use in framing these types of debates.

No aircraft should be assessed independent of operational context. The A-10 is no different. There are operational scenarios where it would be invaluable, but at the same time given its lack of survivability against modern IADS (amongst other factors) you are not going to see it being used in the Taiwan Straits or Suwalki Gap unless the conflict is already effectively won. Given the reality of limited resources and personnel, the more relevant question to ask is what type of conflicts the US will face in the future, which will then inform force structure. Same applies on a wider basis to the size of the US Navy. Both quantity and quality variables matter, but these should also be assessed with regards to both realistic available means and geopolitical context in terms of of likely adversaries.

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

[mind_messing]

No, it is not a big caveat. It does depend on the unit and what it is doing. Is it in combat or garrison? Combat gives a great motivation to learn while in a garrison situation, things can be learned slower but with more detail and nuance. But one new man in a fire team of four is not hard to accommodate - even two of four can be done. Many units go through a turnover frequently with soldiers leaving and others arriving while unit readiness does not suffer. In fact, it can improve.

So, from what you're saying here a unit can take 25-50% churn and maintain (or even improve effectiveness).

Or, to flip that and frame it in reverse, at least half of a unit must have the relevant experience base to be able to assimilate fresh manpower?

Yeah, that seems a big caveat to me. Feel free to disagree.

You speak from experience of course, which is?

I ask again, what is your personal experience in regards to military training and its effectiveness since you stated your opinion on the matter. You did not state that according to a certain person who has bona fide credentials on the subject that it takes a certain amount of time to learn a certain, specific task.

You seem very fixated on my direct personal experience. Do you have prior military experience on the topic at hand that you'd like to share?

Not true. Someone is always looking for a better way to do things, it need not be as expensive. Just compare the T-34 series of tanks against the Panzer mark IIIs and the Panzer mark IVs. Thrown rocks can still kill you.

I did have R&D costs in mind in this aspect (which tend to be much more significant, if intangible to some extent), rather than the unit cost itself.

I am not going to read a paper on the subject, I have better things to do.

What a shame, you might have learned something.

If you're not going to engage in good faith, then pointless to continue the discussion.

[mind_messing]

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

Charge the batteries once a month, change the desiccant as needed, go through the PMCS, report any faults so the mechanic can fix them. How hard is that?

Take the equipment, make sure that the charged batteries are installed, hook up the cable from the controller to the firing system - whether it be a vehicle mounted two missile system, or a pop-up type system on an M113 type of vehicle or a similar vehicle, or a pedestal system on a quarter ton vehicle, its replacement, or even a pickup truck, a "dune buggy" type of military vehicle, or just set up a tripod with the launch tube installed, load a missile making sure that the dust cap is off the connector, lock the missile in place. Turn the system on if it is not already on, look through the targeting eyepiece, fire the missile while keeping the cross hairs on the target, depress the firing mechanism. That is not hard to teach.

The operator of the equipment is usually not a mechanic or a technician.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No, it is not a big caveat. It does depend on the unit and what it is doing. Is it in combat or garrison? Combat gives a great motivation to learn while in a garrison situation, things can be learned slower but with more detail and nuance. But one new man in a fire team of four is not hard to accommodate - even two of four can be done. Many units go through a turnover frequently with soldiers leaving and others arriving while unit readiness does not suffer. In fact, it can improve.

So, from what you're saying here a unit can take 25-50% churn and maintain (or even improve effectiveness).

Yes they can, they are constantly training in one thing or another. Some of the soldiers coming into a unit will have prior experience, some will not.

Or, to flip that and frame it in reverse, at least half of a unit must have the relevant experience base to be able to assimilate fresh manpower?

The German Army in WWII did it with a lot less.

Yeah, that seems a big caveat to me. Feel free to disagree.

You personal experience in this is? Any military experience? Any civilian experience?

It depends upon the job but a rifleman is a rifleman. A carpenter is a carpenter. Some have different motivations, and skill sets. But the end result is the same, getting the job done.

You speak from experience of course, which is?

I ask again, what is your personal experience in regards to military training and its effectiveness since you stated your opinion on the matter. You did not state that according to a certain person who has bona fide credentials on the subject that it takes a certain amount of time to learn a certain, specific task.

You seem very fixated on my direct personal experience. Do you have prior military experience on the topic at hand that you'd like to share?

You are the one making pronouncements about the military training. I just want to know if it is from personal experience and if so, what experience? Or is it just dry reading from who knows their experience, training, and research? One thing about researchers, they will fake information to fir their agenda.

Not true. Someone is always looking for a better way to do things, it need not be as expensive. Just compare the T-34 series of tanks against the Panzer mark IIIs and the Panzer mark IVs. Thrown rocks can still kill you.

I did have R&D costs in mind in this aspect (which tend to be much more significant, if intangible to some extent), rather than the unit cost itself.

R & D costs are factored into the cost of each unit produced. The more units that are produced, the more such fixed costs are spread out. So researching a more specialized device yet an also simpler unit can be cheaper per unit and thus more such units can be produced for the same total cost.

I am not going to read a paper on the subject, I have better things to do.

What a shame, you might have learned something.

I have learned may things and I am still learning so there is no shame. I have better things to do than to read an entire research paper of who knows how long without knowing the credentials of the person or persons writing it nor the motivation and agenda of the person or persons who are doing the research paper or those who want the research done.

If you're not going to engage in good faith, then pointless to continue the discussion.

You are the one not engaging in good faith when you make a pronouncement then when asked where said statement comes from, you refuse to answer. Then you make personal attacks.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

Charge the batteries once a month, change the desiccant as needed, go through the PMCS, report any faults so the mechanic can fix them. How hard is that?

Take the equipment, make sure that the charged batteries are installed, hook up the cable from the controller to the firing system - whether it be a vehicle mounted two missile system, or a pop-up type system on an M113 type of vehicle or a similar vehicle, or a pedestal system on a quarter ton vehicle, its replacement, or even a pickup truck, a "dune buggy" type of military vehicle, or just set up a tripod with the launch tube installed, load a missile making sure that the dust cap is off the connector, lock the missile in place. Turn the system on if it is not already on, look through the targeting eyepiece, fire the missile while keeping the cross hairs on the target, depress the firing mechanism. That is not hard to teach.

The operator of the equipment is usually not a mechanic or a technician.

And the training process for that would be covered within your three month schedule?

There is a reason what the US Army has some 150 MOS assignments. It's because what you can teach in three months has a upper limit. Granted, one that's variable across individuals, but a limit nonetheless.

The German Army in WWII did it with a lot less.

You'll need to provide more substance to this statement.

You personal experience in this is? Any military experience? Any civilian experience?

Again, unsure with your fixation on direct experience here. Unless you're trying to imply that vicarious learning is impossible, which is an...interesting position to take.

It depends upon the job but a rifleman is a rifleman. A carpenter is a carpenter. Some have different motivations, and skill sets. But the end result is the same, getting the job done.

So the problem that's starting to become clear in the modern setting is that being a front-line solider and a carpenter was fine for the Roman legions.

Now that technology has expanded in recent years, there's proficiency with electrical and digital settings to be added to that as well. There's only so much of that you can cover in a three month period.

You are the one making pronouncements about the military training. I just want to know if it is from personal experience and if so, what experience? Or is it just dry reading from who knows their experience, training, and research? One thing about researchers, they will fake information to fir their agenda.

I'll ignore the anti-intellectual red flag and ask if you have an experience that runs contrary to the information presented so far?

I have learned may things and I am still learning so there is no shame. I have better things to do than to read an entire research paper of who knows how long without knowing the credentials of the person or persons writing it nor the motivation and agenda of the person or persons who are doing the research paper or those who want the research done.

See, that's what I meant in post #22 when I said you might have learned something.

The great thing about academic papers is that the author is at the top.

For interest, it took me all of 15 seconds and three Google searches to find all of this information.

On the dissonance between your opening sentence and the subsequent actions, I have no comment other than to point out that your actions are not those typically associated with success learning.

Then again, if one does not try, one cannot fail.

You are the one not engaging in good faith when you make a pronouncement then when asked where said statement comes from, you refuse to answer. Then you make personal attacks.

Good attempt to deflect, but not quite up to the mark.

The ad hominem came from you in post #14 - the implication being that having a required characteristic (in this case, military service) was required in order for the argument to have substance.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:



By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

Charge the batteries once a month, change the desiccant as needed, go through the PMCS, report any faults so the mechanic can fix them. How hard is that?

Take the equipment, make sure that the charged batteries are installed, hook up the cable from the controller to the firing system - whether it be a vehicle mounted two missile system, or a pop-up type system on an M113 type of vehicle or a similar vehicle, or a pedestal system on a quarter ton vehicle, its replacement, or even a pickup truck, a "dune buggy" type of military vehicle, or just set up a tripod with the launch tube installed, load a missile making sure that the dust cap is off the connector, lock the missile in place. Turn the system on if it is not already on, look through the targeting eyepiece, fire the missile while keeping the cross hairs on the target, depress the firing mechanism. That is not hard to teach.

The operator of the equipment is usually not a mechanic or a technician.

And the training process for that would be covered within your three month schedule?

There is a reason what the US Army has some 150 MOS assignments. It's because what you can teach in three months has a upper limit. Granted, one that's variable across individuals, but a limit nonetheless.

The German Army in WWII did it with a lot less.

You'll need to provide more substance to this statement.

You personal experience in this is? Any military experience? Any civilian experience?

Again, unsure with your fixation on direct experience here. Unless you're trying to imply that vicarious learning is impossible, which is an...interesting position to take.

It depends upon the job but a rifleman is a rifleman. A carpenter is a carpenter. Some have different motivations, and skill sets. But the end result is the same, getting the job done.

So the problem that's starting to become clear in the modern setting is that being a front-line solider and a carpenter was fine for the Roman legions.

Now that technology has expanded in recent years, there's proficiency with electrical and digital settings to be added to that as well. There's only so much of that you can cover in a three month period.

You are the one making pronouncements about the military training. I just want to know if it is from personal experience and if so, what experience? Or is it just dry reading from who knows their experience, training, and research? One thing about researchers, they will fake information to fir their agenda.

I'll ignore the anti-intellectual red flag and ask if you have an experience that runs contrary to the information presented so far?

I have learned may things and I am still learning so there is no shame. I have better things to do than to read an entire research paper of who knows how long without knowing the credentials of the person or persons writing it nor the motivation and agenda of the person or persons who are doing the research paper or those who want the research done.

See, that's what I meant in post #22 when I said you might have learned something.

The great thing about academic papers is that the author is at the top.

For interest, it took me all of 15 seconds and three Google searches to find all of this information.

On the dissonance between your opening sentence and the subsequent actions, I have no comment other than to point out that your actions are not those typically associated with success learning.

Then again, if one does not try, one cannot fail.

You are the one not engaging in good faith when you make a pronouncement then when asked where said statement comes from, you refuse to answer. Then you make personal attacks.

Good attempt to deflect, but not quite up to the mark.

The ad hominem came from you in post #14 - the implication being that having a required characteristic (in this case, military service) was required in order for the argument to have substance.

You are the one deflecting. I asked what you are basing your comment on. Was it actual experience or just from reading about it or wherever. I never stated that having actual military experience was necessary to comment. I do know of cases of intellectual fraud in research to fit the researcher's agenda.

BTW, if you have a license to operate a motor vehicle, how many years of training did it take you or did you just read a book to pass any on the road exam?

How long did it take you to learn how to hook up electronics and use them? That is, if you are capable of connecting them in such a way that they can work? Not everyone can, they are just users of said equipment and when something fails, they can't get it working again.

[mind_messing]

You are the one deflecting.

Yes, that's right. You caught me. Red handed too.

I am the one deflecting from the discussion on the increased complexity of modern warfare by shifting the discussion to my military service.

I asked what you are basing your comment on. Was it actual experience or just from reading about it or wherever.

You may want to revisit post #18, but after your comments in post #25 I get the sense that would be pointless.

I'll ignore the presumed value judgement of direct vs indirect experience as I've no interest in going down that road.

I never stated that having actual military experience was necessary to comment.

Then why ask? The only reason that I can fathom is to provide the basis for making an appeal to authority.

However, I may very well be mistaken, and it would be interesting to hear why you have asked.

I do know of cases of intellectual fraud in research to fit the researcher's agenda.

I hope you took the time to at least read those papers first before coming to that conclusion.

[RangerJoe]

Three Scholars Submitted Fake Papers to Academic Journals. Guess What Happened Next.

Poe’s Law basically says that without a clear indicator of intention, it’s impossible to parody extreme views without it being mistaken for the genuine article. Time and time again, this has proven true as some of the more bizarre arguments from the left that we thought were satire turned out to be real.

Of course, it also seems the reverse is equally true.

Yesterday, news broke that a trio of people decided to take a swing at the social justice establishment and, in the process, show just how ridiculous that side really is. They did it by making some incredibly bizarre statements, supporting it with a healthy dose of BS, and waiting to see what would happen.

Well, they got published (via The Wall Street Journal)

https://townhall.com/notebook/tomknight ... d-n2525463

[RangerJoe]

Misconduct in Medical Research

Every time a researcher takes taxpayer money and publishes fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized findings, the taxpayer has in effect been swindled. Furthermore, given our budget deficit, there is never enough money to go around. Each dollar wasted on a dishonest researcher is a dollar that might have gone to another, more worthy candidate who might have made a real contribution. In short, there is an opportunity cost for each grant that is abused.

Moreover, the nature of scientists and the scientific method is to build on the interesting results obtained by others. Every paper published with fabricated or falsified data will spur other scientists using still other federal grants to try to replicate or extend the results, wasting even more money and time.

How widespread, then, is the problem of scientific misconduct? The only honest answer is that we do not know. One indicator is a study conducted by a small research group called the Acadia Institute1,2. This study found that approximately 40 percent of the deans of the nation's major graduate schools knew of confirmed cases of scientific misconduct occurring in their own institutions within the previous five years.


Another indicator is the recent survey sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science3. It found that 27 percent of a group of scientists surveyed said that they had personally encountered, during the previous 10 years, research that they suspected was falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized. Those 27 percent reported, on average, witnessing at least two such incidents. Furthermore, close to half of the respondents said that the incidence of fraud was on the rise, whereas only 2 percent thought it was declining. More than half characterized university investigations of misconduct as lax. Although I would not characterize these findings as scientific, it is difficult to call them inconsequential.

Equally notable, however, were the scientists' responses when asked what they had done about the misconduct they had recognized. The vast majority had done little or nothing. The few who took action generally confined themselves to discussing the incident privately with a few people. Only 2 percent brought the matter to the attention of the public. Ironically, although large numbers had seen misconduct, although virtually none who had seen it had acted, and although the majority viewed university investigations as ineffectual, nearly all claimed that scientists should monitor themselves and that outsiders should not become involved.

The subcommittee also found disturbing attitudes when we contacted some 20 leading scientists to solicit their views on misconduct. In private interviews, almost all these scientists cited examples of misconduct they had witnessed, whistle-blowers they had seen harassed, or other matters engendering concern. Yet none were willing to testify, write open letters, or even have their names used publicly, for fear of retaliation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... 6033282207

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Three Scholars Submitted Fake Papers to Academic Journals. Guess What Happened Next.

Poe’s Law basically says that without a clear indicator of intention, it’s impossible to parody extreme views without it being mistaken for the genuine article. Time and time again, this has proven true as some of the more bizarre arguments from the left that we thought were satire turned out to be real.

Of course, it also seems the reverse is equally true.

Yesterday, news broke that a trio of people decided to take a swing at the social justice establishment and, in the process, show just how ridiculous that side really is. They did it by making some incredibly bizarre statements, supporting it with a healthy dose of BS, and waiting to see what would happen.

Well, they got published (via The Wall Street Journal)

https://townhall.com/notebook/tomknight ... d-n2525463

It's interesting that you chose that link and not the original article written by the WSJ.

I'll be the first to agree that the peer-review and publication/citation system is far from perfect, but I've not seen any realistic proposals for reform.

[RangerJoe]

n Fraud We Trust: Top 5 Cases of Misconduct in University Research

Here, you will find the top five most notorious cases of fraud in university research in only the last few years
.
.
.

Duke University Cancer Research Fraud

In 2010, Dr. Anil Potti left Duke University after allegations of research fraud surfaced. The fraud came in waves. First, Dr. Potti flagrantly lied about being a Rhodes Scholar to attain hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money from the American Cancer Society. Then, Dr. Potti was caught outright falsifying data in his research, after he discovered one of his theories for personalized cancer treatment was disproven. This theory was intended to justify clinical trials for over a hundred patients. Because it was disproven, the trials could no longer take place. Dr. Potti falsified data in order to continue with these trials and attain further funding.

Over a dozen papers that he published were retracted from various medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine.
.
.
.

https://research.uh.edu/the-big-idea/un ... rch-fraud/

A two page pdf on research fraud:

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/ ... h-2019.pdf

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Three Scholars Submitted Fake Papers to Academic Journals. Guess What Happened Next.

Poe’s Law basically says that without a clear indicator of intention, it’s impossible to parody extreme views without it being mistaken for the genuine article. Time and time again, this has proven true as some of the more bizarre arguments from the left that we thought were satire turned out to be real.

Of course, it also seems the reverse is equally true.

Yesterday, news broke that a trio of people decided to take a swing at the social justice establishment and, in the process, show just how ridiculous that side really is. They did it by making some incredibly bizarre statements, supporting it with a healthy dose of BS, and waiting to see what would happen.

Well, they got published (via The Wall Street Journal)

https://townhall.com/notebook/tomknight ... d-n2525463

It's interesting that you chose that link and not the original article written by the WSJ.

I'll be the first to agree that the peer-review and publication/citation system is far from perfect, but I've not seen any realistic proposals for reform.

The solution is very simple. It is called prison and fines. The situation would then reform itself.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Misconduct in Medical Research

Every time a researcher takes taxpayer money and publishes fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized findings, the taxpayer has in effect been swindled. Furthermore, given our budget deficit, there is never enough money to go around. Each dollar wasted on a dishonest researcher is a dollar that might have gone to another, more worthy candidate who might have made a real contribution. In short, there is an opportunity cost for each grant that is abused.

Moreover, the nature of scientists and the scientific method is to build on the interesting results obtained by others. Every paper published with fabricated or falsified data will spur other scientists using still other federal grants to try to replicate or extend the results, wasting even more money and time.

How widespread, then, is the problem of scientific misconduct? The only honest answer is that we do not know. One indicator is a study conducted by a small research group called the Acadia Institute1,2. This study found that approximately 40 percent of the deans of the nation's major graduate schools knew of confirmed cases of scientific misconduct occurring in their own institutions within the previous five years.


Another indicator is the recent survey sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science3. It found that 27 percent of a group of scientists surveyed said that they had personally encountered, during the previous 10 years, research that they suspected was falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized. Those 27 percent reported, on average, witnessing at least two such incidents. Furthermore, close to half of the respondents said that the incidence of fraud was on the rise, whereas only 2 percent thought it was declining. More than half characterized university investigations of misconduct as lax. Although I would not characterize these findings as scientific, it is difficult to call them inconsequential.

Equally notable, however, were the scientists' responses when asked what they had done about the misconduct they had recognized. The vast majority had done little or nothing. The few who took action generally confined themselves to discussing the incident privately with a few people. Only 2 percent brought the matter to the attention of the public. Ironically, although large numbers had seen misconduct, although virtually none who had seen it had acted, and although the majority viewed university investigations as ineffectual, nearly all claimed that scientists should monitor themselves and that outsiders should not become involved.

The subcommittee also found disturbing attitudes when we contacted some 20 leading scientists to solicit their views on misconduct. In private interviews, almost all these scientists cited examples of misconduct they had witnessed, whistle-blowers they had seen harassed, or other matters engendering concern. Yet none were willing to testify, write open letters, or even have their names used publicly, for fear of retaliation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... 6033282207

Again, interesting that you've chosen a correspondence article rather than a research paper. If you're having this conversation again in the future, I would suggest leaning on this article instead.

To respond to the theme more generally, what do you realistically expect? Humans are humans, and cover a wide spectrum. Some of those will breach the principles of academic integrity for any number of reasons.

The real question is what do you do to make the system better.

[mind_messing]

Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said that "Science is at once the most questioning and . . . sceptical of activities and also the most trusting. It is intensely sceptical about the possibility of error, but totally trusting about the possibility of fraud”.

The solution is very simple. It is called prison and fines. The situation would then reform itself.

And who determines where wrongdoing has occurred?

Keep in mind the research and publications done in exceptionally narrow technical domains, where the number of people able to comment appropriately on something of such paramount importance as prison sentences may be very, very small.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


...The real question is what do you do to make the system better.

I would look at these options.

1. Academic journals to employ full time, in house, dedicated reviewers of submitted papers.

2. Insist on zero conflict of interest between reviewers and author.

3. Impose a limit on the number of papers an individual can submit for publication anywhere in a calendar year.

4. The institution employing the author supports the accuracy of the submitted paper and lodges a sum of money which is refunded only if the paper is subsequently not retracted.


These options have their own issues but it would be a start.

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said that "Science is at once the most questioning and . . . sceptical of activities and also the most trusting. It is intensely sceptical about the possibility of error, but totally trusting about the possibility of fraud”.

The solution is very simple. It is called prison and fines. The situation would then reform itself.

And who determines where wrongdoing has occurred?

Keep in mind the research and publications done in exceptionally narrow technical domains, where the number of people able to comment appropriately on something of such paramount importance as prison sentences may be very, very small.

Prison and fines imply a judicial trial, hence a judge and/or a jury. Can you comprehend things like that or does stuff like that have to be written out for you?

If you would have continued to read that article on that cancer researcher, you would have found out what happened. Other articles also state what happened in cases that were mentioned.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said that "Science is at once the most questioning and . . . sceptical of activities and also the most trusting. It is intensely sceptical about the possibility of error, but totally trusting about the possibility of fraud”.

The solution is very simple. It is called prison and fines. The situation would then reform itself.

And who determines where wrongdoing has occurred?

Keep in mind the research and publications done in exceptionally narrow technical domains, where the number of people able to comment appropriately on something of such paramount importance as prison sentences may be very, very small.

Prison and fines imply a judicial trial, hence a judge and/or a jury. Can you comprehend things like that or does stuff like that have to be written out for you?

Oh, of course. Which is why I'd be interested to hear about the practicalities of how you'd ensure the judge and jury were presented the facts of the case properly.

For a hypothetical example to illustrate the point:

Let's say PhD student "A" is on trial for academic dishonesty in a paper on a computerized model of (let's just say) winged insect breeding patterns in tropical environments. The number of people able to comment on either (1) the biological aspect relating to the insects or (2) the computerized aspect will be small. The number able to do both will be smaller still.

[RangerJoe]

There is this famous research paper, often cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

http://frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/the-r ... -examined/

On the troubling trail of psychiatry’s pseudopatients stunt
Susannah Cahalan’s investigation of the social-psychology experiment that saw healthy people sent to mental hospitals finds inconsistencies — Alison Abbott reviews.

frontierpsychiatrist.co.uk/the-rosenhan-experiment-examined/

The Great Pretender: The Undercover Mission that Changed Our Understanding of Madness
Susannah Cahalan

n January 1973, Science (along with Nature, the most influential general science journal in the world) published an article that immediately captured major media attention. David Rosenhan, a Stanford social psychologist, reported that eight pseudo-patients had presented themselves at a variety of mental hospitals, 12 in all, complaining that they were hearing voices saying ‘hollow, empty and thud’, but otherwise behaving completely normally.

All of them, he reported, were promptly admitted, and all but one diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia (the other receiving the somewhat more hopeful diagnosis of manic depressive psychosis). It took weeks for them to be released, though they were instructed to show no symptoms once admitted. When they were finally discharged, they received the damning diagnosis of ‘schizophrenia in remission’, a label that promised to compromise their futures ever afterwards.
.
.
.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how ... ck-decades

Review: 'The Great Pretender,' by Susannah Cahalan
NONFICTION: A thrilling and lively work of investigative journalism unmasks a 1970s study that fundamentally changed the discipline of psychiatry.
.
.
.
In her acclaimed debut, “Brain on Fire: My Month of Madness,” Susannah Cahalan documented the psychotic break she suffered at 24, a terrifying episode that ended happily when it was determined that she had a completely curable autoimmune disorder — a neurological problem rather than a psychiatric one. What she had been saved from became achingly clear when, on tour for the book, she was told about another young woman with the same condition. Misdiagnosed and mistreated for two years instead of just a month, this woman’s cognitive abilities had grown so diminished that she could no longer care for herself.

Stunned by the precariousness of psychiatric diagnosis and the disastrous outcomes it can sometimes cause, Cahalan began the investigation documented in “The Great Pretender.” This vital book, full of intelligence and brio, is a must-read for anyone who has mental illness issues somewhere in their life — i.e., everyone.

Cahalan’s main focus is a study conducted in the 1970s by the late David Rosenhan of Stanford University. In it, eight patients, including Rosenhan himself, managed to get themselves diagnosed with schizophrenia and checked into mental wards simply by showing up and claiming that they were hearing voices. The “pseudo-patients” then spent from two weeks to 52 days institutionalized, treated and medicated (Rosenhan taught them to “cheek” their drugs) until they got themselves released, often with difficulty.

When the results of this study were published in Science magazine, humiliation rocked the psychiatric profession. The most significant long-range effects of Rosenhan’s landmark work included the widespread closing of hospitals and the vigorous revision and expansion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the DSM-III. This book, “as important to psychiatrists as the Constitution is to the U.S. government or the Bible is to Christians,” according to one of Cahalan’s sources, was written with the specter of those eight false diagnoses hanging over every page.

Cahalan’s main focus is a study conducted in the 1970s by the late David Rosenhan of Stanford University. In it, eight patients, including Rosenhan himself, managed to get themselves diagnosed with schizophrenia and checked into mental wards simply by showing up and claiming that they were hearing voices. The “pseudo-patients” then spent from two weeks to 52 days institutionalized, treated and medicated (Rosenhan taught them to “cheek” their drugs) until they got themselves released, often with difficulty.

When the results of this study were published in Science magazine, humiliation rocked the psychiatric profession. The most significant long-range effects of Rosenhan’s landmark work included the widespread closing of hospitals and the vigorous revision and expansion of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the DSM-III. This book, “as important to psychiatrists as the Constitution is to the U.S. government or the Bible is to Christians,” according to one of Cahalan’s sources, was written with the specter of those eight false diagnoses hanging over every page.
.
.
.

https://www.startribune.com/review-the- ... 564217782/

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said that "Science is at once the most questioning and . . . sceptical of activities and also the most trusting. It is intensely sceptical about the possibility of error, but totally trusting about the possibility of fraud”.



And who determines where wrongdoing has occurred?

Keep in mind the research and publications done in exceptionally narrow technical domains, where the number of people able to comment appropriately on something of such paramount importance as prison sentences may be very, very small.

Prison and fines imply a judicial trial, hence a judge and/or a jury. Can you comprehend things like that or does stuff like that have to be written out for you?

Oh, of course. Which is why I'd be interested to hear about the practicalities of how you'd ensure the judge and jury were presented the facts of the case properly.

For a hypothetical example to illustrate the point:

Let's say PhD student "A" is on trial for academic dishonesty in a paper on a computerized model of (let's just say) winged insect breeding patterns in tropical environments. The number of people able to comment on either (1) the biological aspect relating to the insects or (2) the computerized aspect will be small. The number able to do both will be smaller still.

Ask that question of a prosecutor. You want me to prove everything yet you make statements with no backing and when you are asked to show where said information is coming from, you do not answer - instead you get abusive. You also do not state what dishonest was in the paper. Insufficient information.