Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke
Bad Guardian has posted no evidence to support his claim.
|
Which claim?
This discussion has suffered some confusion, probably because we were discussing different images.
Which claim do you think requires additional evidence?
To reduce the confusion, if you don't mind, I'll summarize the argument in numbered paragraphs, and you can tell us which parts you think require additional evidence.
1. The landform in question is a hill.
2. The image in the press release was processed badly. Very, very badly. Normal 3D shading cues were aggressively suppressed-- so aggressively that the hill doesn't even look like a hill!
3. The use of bogus data in a press release, whether accidental or deliberate, is Bad Astronomy.
4. If the people who issued the press release had somehow fooled themselves, and honestly thought that their image was an accurate depiction of the shape of the landform, then they certainly must have learned very quickly-- within a few days, at most-- that this was not the case.
5. Deciding not to issue a retraction, when you learn that you've used bogus data in a press release, is Bad Astronomy.
6. Conclusion: Fight fair. Don't cut corners, don't cheat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke
I hope you are not trying to hijack this thread.
|
I don't think Jerry was trying to hijack anything. He was only trying to explain the ethical principle that I was stating. I could try to state it more clearly, but instead I'll let Feynman say it, because he said it best:
Quote:
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty-- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked-- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
|