How so? When scientists perform studies, they can sometimes benefit (money, job, or simply reputation) by inventing data or otherwise skipping steps in their research. At other times, they can benefit by failing to publish a result when they can benefit by refraining to publish. A scientist who is willing to violate certain ethical principles (lying, cheating, etc) is surely more willing to act unethically in publishing (or declining to publish) their studies.
Possibly more willing. They might be willing to sacrifice moral standards for the sake of furthering human knowledge that they wouldn’t break for personal gain. It would still be evidence of untrustworthiness though.
“Unethically obtained evidence is less trustworthy” is the wrongest thing I’ve heard in this whole discussion :-)
How so? When scientists perform studies, they can sometimes benefit (money, job, or simply reputation) by inventing data or otherwise skipping steps in their research. At other times, they can benefit by failing to publish a result when they can benefit by refraining to publish. A scientist who is willing to violate certain ethical principles (lying, cheating, etc) is surely more willing to act unethically in publishing (or declining to publish) their studies.
Possibly more willing. They might be willing to sacrifice moral standards for the sake of furthering human knowledge that they wouldn’t break for personal gain. It would still be evidence of untrustworthiness though.