One annoying feature of re-reading other people's scholarship, is the possibility of discovering that one's treasured ideas may well be anticipated by others. Memory and self-deception can be funny like that. So, it's probably not uncommon that folk really fail to attribute to others what is due to them without realizing they are in the wrong. Even when the mistakes are honest, they still involve injustices, and these may be quite large given that they may, say, reinforce gender related unfairness, too. Such injustices are not easy to excuse or forgive when one feels that one's work or presence has been silenced or unfairly ignored. Even so, we try to cope with this kind of injustice. Yet, faking data or copying (and pasting) texts without attribution is legitimately an unpardonable sin in the Academy, especially if it is part of a pattern of such (plagiarism/faking) cases. One might be willing to give a student a second chance, but recoil from letting a confirmed fraudulent senior scholar back into the fold. Paradoxically many of us treat such cases as worse sin than many crimes on the 'outside.' (Coetzee's Disgrace reflects on this.)
It is, thus, understandable that the good folk at Retractionwatch react with dismay that prominent scholars, including philosophy's very own Philip Pettit, are willing to endorse Marc Hauser's forthcoming book, Evilicious. What really rankles Retractionwatch is that Hauser has not owned up to his record of misconduct and "only acknowledged “mistakes.”" (As they write: "But we do prefer when those given a second chance acknowledge that they did something wrong. That might start with noting a retraction, instead of continuing to list the retracted paper among your publications.")
Now we at Newapps followed Hauser's shenanigans (here, here, here). I have a great deal of sympathy for the reaction of the folk at Retractionwatch. Even so, we should not forget that Hauser's book is directed at a popular audience. It's not original research, and while undoubtedly he will make claims that are original (or have the appearance of originality) it's not, well, science. So, he is not really being given a second chance. (I assume that he might get a genuine second chance one day in science, although it looks as if he keeps busy with other gigs.) So, I view the book as him exercising his right to earn a living, even though I suspect that his analysis of (what he calls) 'moral disengagement' is undoubtedly informed by empirical experience.
Recent Comments