{"id":133,"date":"2005-04-27T10:06:45","date_gmt":"2005-04-27T15:06:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/archives\/2005\/04\/25\/fortnows-thoughts-on-scigen\/"},"modified":"2005-04-27T10:07:56","modified_gmt":"2005-04-27T15:07:56","slug":"fortnows-thoughts-on-scigen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/archives\/2005\/04\/27\/fortnows-thoughts-on-scigen\/","title":{"rendered":"Fortnow’s thoughts on SCIgen"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lance Fortnow had a real go<\/a> at the MIT students that got the bogus paper accepted<\/a> at the SCI conference.<\/p>\n

\nI would consider someone who intentionally submits a bogus paper to STOC guilty of academic fraud. Why are these MIT students any different?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I (and many of the people who’ve commented on his blog) think there’s a big difference. Fraud implies some serious intent to “get away with something”, to pass one thing off as another. Anyone who spent 2 minutes reading their paper would immediately realize that this isn’t a real<\/em> paper. They might be confused regarding the intent, but they would know instantly and absolutely that the authors weren’t even trying<\/em> to fool anyone into thinking that it was a real piece of science. The papers that SCIgen churns out are about as subtle as a Three Stooges film, and that’s not fraud, that’s parody. Parody is a crucial tool in the toolkit of those looking to expose shams and shallow thinking, and as such I think the students’ actions were completely reasonable.<\/p>\n

P.S. One of the comments on Fortnow’s blog points to this fascinating piece on the The Bogdanoff Affair<\/a>. One might perhaps argue that academics (including scientists) have some obligation to make some sense in our writing and speaking, and that we should demand no less when reviewing the work of others.<\/p>\nNo tag for this post.\n\t

Related posts<\/h4>\n\t