Norton Scientific: \Zinder, Norton D. "Fraud in Science, A Scientist's View," Science 83 (January/February, 1983)

pp. 94-95.\

This is a review of Broad and Wade's Betrayers of the Truth. The author uses a subtitle which is
revealing: the loyalist responds to heresy not by seeing that something might be wrong, that there
may be some merit to this sort of reassessment, but by defending the ideology. Zinder has
managed to misread Broad and Wade in several places. There is sufficient misrepresentation to
mean that he read the book very selectively. "The authors continually confound science with
scientists. And the book not only fails to enlighten us on science but doesn't even begin to
provide any insight on scientific method." (p. 94)

"Thirty four cases of fraud over a 2,000 year period are documented in the book, a number
roughly comparable to the number of lawyers who went to jail for Watergate. Despite this small
number, the authors imply that scientific fraud is common. They estimate that there are 100
additional major frauds, plagiarisms, and data fabrications for each one detected..." That's not
Broad and Wade. If one wishes to criticize, one should use the more absurd figures used by them.
There is no need to fake it.

The reviewer cites the recent case of Spector, at Cornell, and suggests that the case was not really
a fraud at all. The very moment the announcement was made, there were skeptics who doubted.

The Spector case, this reviewer feels, is a poor example of fraud in science. His summary: "...the
authors took reports of scientific fraud and strung them together, claiming that their analysis
would reveal something profound about science. It doesn't. From fraud, one only learns about
fraud." (p. 95)

Norton Scientific: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » The strange Quadrant hoax

Crikey, in one of its rare (if minor) scoops, reports that Quadrant editor Keith Windschuttle was hoaxed into publishing this piece on scare campaigns and science reporting by mythical biotechnologist Sharon Gould.

But what point is this hoax intended to make?

According to the Crikey article,

In a ruse designed to lampoon Windschuttle’s historical research, which began by checking the footnotes of leading historians, the article contains some false references.

Maybe there is a very small irony here, but there is not much of an analogy. Academic historians writing on their own subject should be held to high standards of accuracy. Editors of generalist magazines publishing tens of thousands of other people’s words a month on a wide variety of topics cannot be expected to check every claim and every reference.

From a reader’s perspective, it’s hard to see the difference between the hoax article and the error-ridden piece Crikey published on think-tanks a few weeks ago, except that “Sharon Gould” lied about his/her true identity, and Crikey‘s Andrew Crook used his real name (I assume; I had never heard of him prior to this). They are both non-credible pieces that ideally should not have been published, but in a world of limited editorial resources they both slipped through the net.

Nor is it at all clear that this hoax has the meaning attributed to it by Crikeyjournalist Margaret Simons on her blog:

The sting of this hoax as I undertand it is to establish that despite its attacks on post-modern slackness, and despite Windschuttle’s nitpicking of other people’s research, despite the fulminating against academic slackness from the right, it is possible for Quadrant and Windschuttle to publish pseudo-scientific nonsense, so long as it appears to fit in with their ideological view. In other words, that zealotry of all kinds has the potential to make people blind to evidence that doesn’t fit in with their preconceptions, and more liable to accept and privilege evidence that pleases them.

The trouble with this interpretation is that there is nothing much in this article that particularly fits with the Quadrant worldview.

As I read the article, it has two main arguments. The first is that the views of the public are often ill-informed on science due to the way scientific findings are reported, and are given too much weight relative to the views of scientists. It would be hard to dispute that most members of the public are not scientific experts, and I doubt there are many experts on any subject who believe that the public’s less-informed opinions should prevail over their own. Such views could be found from people of almost any political perspective except populism.

The only hint that there could be some ideological angle here is the chosen example of genetically modified food. Some right-wingers have criticised what they regard as Green superstitions on this subject. But many conservatives of the type who readQuadrant would also have reservations about genetic modification.

And this makes it all the less likely that the second argument fits with the Quadrantideological worldview. This is that human genes be used to modify food. I’d be surprised if most conservatives did not oppose that.

For the hoax idea to work along these lines, it needed to be a climate change denialist piece – the one area in which Quadrant has been involved in a scientific debate that has acquired distinctive left-right ideological connotations. ButQuadrant is generally attacked on this for rejecting the scientific consensus, when on the logic of Simons’ ‘understanding’ the Quadrant orthodoxy would need to be an uncritical embrace of whatever scientists say.

If I had to guess why Windschuttle was attracted to this piece (which isn’t well written) it is that he thought it might be provocative, rather than because he thought his readers would be nodding in agreement. But he clearly didn’t think it was that noteworthy, as it appears on page 70 of the print version of the magazine. (His response to the hoax is here.)

The Windschuttle haters will enjoy this. But as a hoax it is little better than the science that appears in “Sharon Gould”‘s article.

Norton Community Schools

Congratulations to the Norton Blue Jays, the 2011 3-2-1A Wrestling Champions! The Blue Jays scored 131.5 points and easily outdistanced second place Hoxie, who finished the tournament with 97 points. The Blue Jays won their second consecutive 3-2-1A State Championship, and their fifth since 2004.

The Blue Jays 2011 State Team consisted of the following:
103 Freshman Branson Addington (DNP)
112 Sophomore John Risewick (Runner-up)
130 Senior Troy Bainter (Champion)
135 Senior Brett Terrell (Runner-up)
140 Senior Bill Broeckelman (6th Place)
160 Senior Landon "Tug" Keiswetter Champion)
171 Senior Spencer Shirk (Champion)
Managers: Sophomore Julianna Miller and Senior Kaid McKenna
Head Coach: Bill Johnson Assistant Coaches: Shane Miller, Doug Ray, and Tony Fiscus

Jonathan Norton wins TeCO play competition

SMU Graduate Student Jonathan Norton almost didn't enter TeCo's annual New Play Competition this year. His experience with the contest last year had shaken his confidence, and if it wasn't for the prodding of Artistic Director Teresa Coleman Wash he might have passed up on this opportunity.

His decision to enter prompted his new one-act play "The Last Supper" and made him $1,000 richer when he took home the prize.

TeCo Theatrical Productions is located in the Bishop Arts district and is focused on cultivating and producing multicultural works. This competition is in its ninth year and gives regional and brand-new playwrights the opportunity to submit and stage their work.

Audiences are then asked to vote for their favorite and the overall votes are tallied at the end of the three week run.

Norton submitted a dark comedy about a mother and son who sit down to dinner, only to have Jesus join them.

"I was on my lunch break from work turning over this idea that I'd had for a long time," Norton said. "This competition became a fun way to revisit something I've been turning over for a while."

Norton completed his undergraduate studies at Marymount University and was hired by Allison Tweedy to be an administrative assistant at SMU and is now pursuing a master's in liberal studies.

He had taken Gretchen Smith's playwriting class as part of his MLS program and is currently a semi-finalist in the Eugene O'Neil Theater Center's National Playwright Conference.

He acheived this status with a play entitled "My Tidy List of Terrors," which will be produced in its entirety later this year at the South Dallas Cultural Center.

He said that his experience at TeCo has been incredibly encouraging as he considers future endeavors.

"I was so incredibly nervous going into the experience," Norton said. "But it wasn't even about the prize for me, I was just happy I could redeem myself with the audience."

ADAM v. NORTON

DAVID P. ADAM; LANFORD ADAMI; JAMES P. CALZIA; BELA CSEJTEY, JR.; ALICE S. DAVIS; JAMES L. DRINKWATER; ARTHUR B. FORD; ARTHUR GRANTZ; BARRY F. HIRSHORN; H. MAHADEVA IYER; CHI-YU KING; STEPHEN L. LEWIS; ALLAN G. LINDH; DENNIS M. MANN; A. THOMAS OVENSHINE; BRENT D. TURRIN; CHESTER T. WRUCKE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Welcome to Norton Commons

Find homes for sale, view the Master Plan and see all the amenities home owners enjoy.
Everyday is eventful at Norton Commons. Check out the latest news and events to see why.
Become a part of our neighborhood by signing up to receive our email updates.

Norton >> Norton Sales

Norton Sales has been a leading supplier of Aerospace and Industrial supplies since 1962. Our customers tend to be small shops and individuals who are looking for very specific, and often hard to find, parts for rocketry, stunt equipment, movie props and old school hydraulics. We have so many unique products in stock, that it would be nearly impossible to list them all. Browse through the listing on the left to get an idea of the types of parts we have in stock. Give us a call, and one of our staff will help you find what you are looking for.