With each new drop of information spilled by the media, the case seems clearer that Hauser made up data. As Nicholas Wade reports, this would potentially be "the unforgivable sin."
"Given the published design of the experiment, my conclusion is that the control condition was fabricated," said Gerry Altmann, the editor of the journal Cognition, in which the experiment was published....
"There is a difference between breaking the rules and breaking the most sacred of all rules," said Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia. The failure to have performed a reported control experiment would be "a very serious and perhaps unforgivable offense," Dr. Haidt said.
More like this
Will Wilkinson and Jon Haidt just did a bloggingheads.tv.
My colleague in the philosophy department here at UMM, Tamler Sommers, has a couple of interesting interviews online, one with Frans de Waal and another with
(This article is also available on Edge, along with some other rebuttals to and affirmations of Haidt's piece.)
I've been meaning to post about this set of studies for a while, but because it's relevant to Chapter 4 of Lakoff's The Political Mind, I figured I'd better get around to it before I write the review of that chapter.
Damn!
How about a regular peer-audit additional to the reviewing process?
Does this mean I should throw out my copy of his book "Moral Minds?