Popular Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel found to be a fraud

How widespread is this, Bob?

All psychologists are frauds.

Seems similar to a Munchhausen syndrome. Although Munchhausen is used in MEDICAL terms, THIS character may also have been seeking constant attention. . .maybe even adoration.

http://en.wikiped...syndrome

in before a crank uses this to argue AGW, DE, evolution, etc and also before the thread becomes a lesson in the scientific method / peer review that is aimed at the trolls and is promptly ignored and/or forgotten

Edit: dang, too late. Kaas was in before me.

Sounds like Climate Science all over again!

in before a crank uses this to argue AGW, DE, evolution, etc and also before the thread becomes a lesson in the scientific method / peer review that is aimed at the trolls and is promptly ignored and/or forgotten

Psychology is not science. Neuroscience however IS science.

in before a crank uses this to argue AGW, DE, evolution, etc and also before the thread becomes a lesson in the scientific method / peer review that is aimed at the trolls and is promptly ignored and/or forgotten

Psychology is not science. Neuroscience however IS science.

Have you really never heard of the phrase "soft science?" If you have, what gives you the authority to define words for the rest of us? If you have a nuanced opinion about the merits of psychology, why didn't you give that, instead of a loaded comment? Some would call that trollish behavior, but you don't allow your intentions to be known, so who knows what you think you are doing?

How many times does this need to happen before people see there is a serious problem yet with a few simple solutions?

Next time university professors have students sign a form acknowledging the university's policy against cheating, fraud and plagiarism, the students should write "Right back at you!" on the bottom of the form.

in before a crank uses this to argue AGW, DE, evolution, etc and also before the thread becomes a lesson in the scientific method / peer review that is aimed at the trolls and is promptly ignored and/or forgotten

Psychology is not science. Neuroscience however IS science.

Have you really never heard of the phrase "soft science?" If you have, what gives you the authority to define words for the rest of us? If you have a nuanced opinion about the merits of psychology, why didn't you give that, instead of a loaded comment?

You dare to make a comment about scientific method and then mention something like soft-science?

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,

Something is science or it is not. There is no in between.

Perhaps this is just another field trial to test the public on opinions about fraudulent scientific work, under the guise of an actual fraudulent scientist.

He should face prison for at least a year as a deterrence to other researchers.

Is alone? Bluntly many researchers seem unnaturally productive which paradoxically makes it hard to raise doubts. Successful they have more to lose and so make any suggestions their work is less than kosher particularly libelous.

How many times does this need to happen before people see there is a serious problem yet with a few simple solutions?

How many times do people have to be told that their perspective of news is affected by an ever increasing sample size? Bad things aren't happening more often. We are simply being presented with more news than in the past. There are also more scientists than ever. Adjust your outrage accordingly.

Ok, arguing whether or not soft sciences actually use the method got old for me 15 years ago. I knew this was going to devolve into a total waste of time. Later, dudes.

Ok, arguing whether or not soft sciences actually use the method got old for me 15 years ago. I knew this was going to devolve into a total waste of time. Later, dudes.

If something uses scientific method it is science, not soft-science.

Actually, Kaasinees, the breadth of the Psychology spectrum is quite extensive, and although there are fields of study under the larger umbrella term which utilize more empirical and objective forms of testing, such as the ones used in biopsychology or neuropsychology (those are the correct terms, not neuroscience...), you have to remember than even the most humanistic and 'social' side of Psychology utilizes statistically based research methods with their experiments. In addition, all undergraduate students who declare Psychology degrees are required to study upper 3rd and 4th year statistics courses for that very reason. Do you see them doing that in the humanities? Hardly.
I would be willing to bet, given your ridiculous remarks, that your background lies in the natural sciences, thus you somehow feel justified to call Psychology a 'non-science' simply because it is, INDEED, a Social Science by nature. Just silly if you ask me (and very far from scientific!).

Psychology degrees are required to study upper 3rd and 4th year statistics courses for that very reason. Do you see them doing that in the humanities? Hardly.

So you agree that psychologists apply psychology on the general population based on ASSUMPTIONS? Behavioral studies are a subset of neuroscience(yes this term is correct). The exact field of science they practice is as you said (and if you agree statistical analysis is science, which i do not) neuroscience.

They take the results of other sciences(neuroscience) take a an average or most occurent phenomena and then go to assume that this applies to the general population? Agree or not?

This is no science.

Kaasiness:
Your propositional logic is totally illogical and is not supported by example. To make it worse, your question is loaded (So you agree?). Someone has to take the time to actually break down what you are saying in order to analyze & make sense of it. You should work on that.
First of all, get your facts right. Scientists at University that study human behavior or cognition are engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge and are not necessarily 'Psychologists' in the legal sense.
Secondly, this sentence makes no sense: 'Psychologists applying psychology based on assumptions'. This is something no one could agree with based on how poorly it is written.
Thirdly, behavioral studies are NOT a subset of Neuropsychology and they most certainly don't take the results from other areas of their OWN field in order to make assumptions based on the population. Your claim doesn't even have any evidence to support this. WHAT results? WHAT averages? Who is THEY?
Try again...

"Also, sadly, many students that had Stapel as a supervisor now face questions about the work on their theses as well."

Does anyone have an estimate on the number of former students whom might be affected because of his activities?

First of all, get your facts right. Scientists at University that study human behavior or cognition are engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge and are not necessarily 'Psychologists' in the legal sense.

No reading comprehension? They are by definition neuroscientists. As i said.

Thirdly, behavioral studies are NOT a subset of Neuropsychology

They are a subset of neuroscience.(which is what i said)
You give an organism an environment with your variables, you watch this organism react to this environment, you change a variable and watch the changes in behavior. Obviously behavior is defined by neurophysiology(also a subset of neuroscience)

http://en.wikiped...oscience

Try again.

Your arguments are loaded with nonsense and you use terms incorrectly and i wasn't talking to you. Try again.

READING COMPREHENSION___ FAILURE.(seriously neuropsychology?)

I would be willing to bet, given your ridiculous remarks, that your background lies in the natural sciences, thus you somehow feel justified to call Psychology a 'non-science'

Science is by definition natural.

Gees, why are there so many pseudoscience wannabes on this website?

lol
You are the tree of knowledge? They are the birds of a feather? That flock together? And had no choice or say coming to the world as woodpeckers? And when they see a tree that is what they do?

Pokin' fun.
Peckin' fun?
lol

Actually, Kaasinees, your reading comprehension could do with some work. Clinical Neuropsychology is a field, and I have many colleagues who have PhD's in either Clinical or Cognitive Neuropsychology. One of my colleagues is a Clinical Neuropsychologist who conducts research with patients who have Prosopagnosia. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Their undergraduate work was completed by completing BSc's in both Biopsychology and Computer Science fields. So for the last time, please cease dismissing the term Neuropsychology in order to make a point which has no real value.

And to respond to your last post: Cognition and human behaviour IS natural. So given your claim, you are asserting that cognition and behaviour isn't natural and therefore it isn't a science! Momentsinmind is right, your logic is very illogical!
And just so you can see how silly copy and pasting wiki articles is, enjoy this one:
http://en.wikiped...ychology

Neuroscience is, as it implies, the science of the study of the brain, its components, its functions, diseases and its physiology. Actually, the field of Neuroscience is a blanket that encompasses ALL disciplines having to do with the brain. . . .including Neuropsychology. Neuropsychology, as well as other fields, are specialized and require students' concentration mostly in that field. There are also behavioral sciences which largely deal with consensus using graphs, gauges, and others attained while in the field. One or all of the fields are valuable in the evaluation of brain function and anomalies.

Actually, since neurons are grounded in basic physics and chemistry, which in turn are suborned by quantum mechanics, it therefore follows that not just psychology but also neuroscience is not a real science, and that neuroscientists -- just like psychologists -- are actually quantum physicists.

There, simplified your "argument" for you.

They're all related, Pink ;))

He should face prison for at least a year as a deterrence to other researchers.

Interesting. Scientists with questionable methods and data are mercilessly prosecuted, while politicians who cheated and lied through their teeth are still in power, and the taxpayers have to foot their generous pensions! A revolution is in order!

Falsifiability, as the solution to the problem of induction and demarcation, is a fine razor for cutting science from nonsense.

Next time university professors have students sign a form acknowledging the university's policy against cheating, fraud and plagiarism, the students should write "Right back at you!" on the bottom of the form.

and every profesor (at the latest as a PhD student) has signed those forms himself. Your point?

Ther will always be individuals who take the easy way out. Corrupt policemen, politicians or corner cutting scientists. Does that mean that this is standard behavior in the entire profession? (OK...maybe 'politicians' was a bad example, but you get the point)
As for psychology. We shouldn't diss it too hard - it is an exceptionally tricky science. Most other science can have rigorously controlled experiments. But humans can't be kept in isolation and deprived of all factors (including memories, daily form, current emotional balance, ... ) except the ones under scrutiny.
That psychology produces less 'hard' findings than other sciences is to be expected.

Dear kaasinees,

So...

experimental work, with manipulation of different (experimental and control)conditions, collecting data and running it through statistical analysis programs ...
does that sound like science?
If yes, psychology has to count as science.
If no, please explain why...

Those in positions of power who abuse the system for personal gains should face prison time. Scientists, police, clergy, politicians, bankers, journalists, among others, should be held to a higher standard. Corruption damages public perception of trusted systems.