Dear Antonio,

The paramount obligation of a scientist is honesty.

Best regards,

Bob

The ethical compromise should always be genuine with no adjectives to define it.

It's dishonest to change or fail to report conflicting data. The best approach would be to repeat the methods which resulted in the data, analyze the conditions to determine what the contributing factors are, and then prepare the report with neutral language.

Goodness is about character - integrity, honesty, kindness, generosity, moral courage, and the like. More than anything else, it is about how we treat other people. ~ Dennis Prager

Dear Antonio,

The paramount obligation of a scientist is honesty.

Best regards,

Bob

It depends on the new knowledge that is being presented. For example, when mixed methods researchers began to present their methodology, they were not readily accepted by other researchers from the established quantitative and qualitative paradigms; but after many debates, they came out the winners in proving that mixed methods is a third paradigm in research methodology. Similarly, I think it is up to those scientists in the field to challenge what is being presented until it can be proven accepted by the research community. If the researcher/scientist is not willing to enter into to such debates or scrutiny by his/her fellow scientists, then the research would not be cited or used to advance knowledge in the scientific field.

Many thanks,

Debra 

Well, the first thing to do is to check, double-check, and then triple-check, also by the help of others. If it is counter-intuitive or appears to contradict previous findings, then chances ARE high that there is something wrong within the argumentation and/or experiments.

We all know - I hope! - that plenty of the outlets of our research (journals and conferences) have gone downhill with respect to the level of scrutiny in assessing correctness. There simply is a more lax attitude to errors in research, because of the pressure to publish on the one hand, and the eagerness of publishers to earn money. We must go against that stupid stream and stay focused on being CORRECT.

It's a complicate question. There is a relation between knowledge and experience. There is a relation between knowledge and politics and so on. Much of the research is negated, other research is misused. So we have our responsibility to use it for the benefit of mankind, for this there is a certain need of independence. 

Artur is very close to the truth: "If you want to end up like Galileo Galilei, do your thing. If you want to make a career, follow the mainstream."

Let me mention an example. I am a professor of information science, but I spent many years doing logic, and I argue that the discourse about the "relativity of time" is structurally and logically wrong. This is not a matter of experiments, but of a logically consistent discourse. The only thing that seems correct and tested in this story are the Lorentz transformations (published by Lorentz in 1904). The rest is an inconsistent and useless discourse. But this discourse is very famous! No editor of a journal of physics or philosophy of science will take the risk of publishing a paper that challenges such a great "discovery" as the relativity of time. I do not need to publish anything; I gathered all I had to say in the text "On the nature of time", and put it on RG and Arxiv; this is enough for me. However, it is nevertheless frustrating to encounter such a radical impossibility to challenge the Authority. Scientific discourse is supposed to be open and critical, but it is often not.

The situation may be different in purely empirical research, but theoretical (conceptual) debates are very "conservative", to say the least. 

I think I do know you dear @Antonio. Scientific ethics and moral have no price. You are not man of compromise. I like @Artur sarcasm.

Let me add two things to the answer I wrote above.

(1) The editor of a journal (or his secretary, perhaps) saw my paper I mentioned above ("On the nature of time") on Arxiv, and invited me to submit the paper to his journal. But this was an open source journal, where the author must pay to get the paper published. I have not done it.

(2) Working on the topic of the use of computers in education, I learned that some universities do not allow their employees to mention the name of the university in those papers which put forwards some *negative* results about the use of computers in education. Universities do not want to "offend" the big industry. In sum, science is business. Honesty can wait.

The researcher who have found the "evidence" that goes against the main stream of the established knowledge should carefully and repeatedly check the method that lead to the "evidence." If no defects were found in the method, the researcher should bravely publish the result. The main stream of the established knowledge is not always correct.

I think that Mario and Artur are correct. In science there is a tendency to be on the conservative side and not question deep philosophical questions. Even if the established principle is  either inconsistent or invalid. On the other hand one has to understand why this is so and react accordingly, science is an establishment and as any other establishment there are rules and tradition. Even if we deny it, the traditions of science push us to be extremely skeptical of radical thinking that goes against the established "Dogma", and with good reason. There are some theories out there that are simply wrong.

Dear Antonio,

I agree with Bob that a scientist's honesty is indispensable. I also appreciated Artur's sarcastic and concise comments.

Dear All,

If somebody does not agree with Artur, should express his/her opinion. Down-voting is unacceptable in such a circle.

Dear All,

Galilei had a great chance compared with Ignác Semmelweis.

„The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.

The term originated from the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that childbed fever mortality rates reduced ten-fold when doctors washed their hands with a chlorine solution between patients and, most in particular, after an autopsy (the institution where Semmelweis worked, a university hospital, performed autopsies on every deceased patient). Semmelweis's decision stopped the ongoing contamination of patients—mostly pregnant women—with "cadaverous particles".[1] His hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman's hands could transmit disease (see Contemporary reaction to Ignaz Semmelweis).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

In addition, Ignac Semmelweis, the professor of maternity department at the University of Budapest was treated by many Hungarian and European colleagues as a madman, even his enemies could manage that he was lured and closed in a mental hospital in Vienna where he was beaten by the male nurses and guards that he died in two weeks.  He became actually a martyr of medical science.

What about similar cases in your country or elsewhere?

Is the Semmelweis reflex the worst obstacle of scientific progress? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Semmelweis_reflex_the_worst_obstacle_of_scientific_progress [accessed Dec 16, 2015].

Every one should be honest in reporting facts or other researcher results in her/his research. Researcher when writing results should state the other results that consistent or inconsistent with the results of her/his reseach. This is how we enrich our researches.

@Dr Mahfuz, good response

Dear all

Integrity and courageous is absolutely necessary for a great scientist, just as Galileo Galilei.

@ Dr Mahfuz, good answer!

Research after all is to find truth of things and solve problems. Problems are solved with real solutions not by otherwise and truth therefore demands honesty and being real scientist. In fact if a person disregards truth for the sake of staying in the pack, then he/she is not a real scientist after all and does not promote science but friendliness.

I think knowledge evolves even if some conditions are found not useful for some knowledge than another ; it is always a new information or data that improves the known knowledge.

I think science needs evidence, not honesty or beliefs. If the evidence of the results are there nobody will search through the honesty or not of the scientist. A dishonest one couldn't makes any evidence.

Seeking the truth and honesty are two virtues of science and to be honest is a stringent duty for every scientist/researcher. Acting ethically and professionally is a must for scientists.

Behrouz is right, in principle. But in reality, most scientists, especially the young (which I am not) are in a materially weak position. Hence, most of them simply cannot go against the mainstream discourse and practice. This is reality; the rest are nice ideals.

Incidentally, as much as I remember, Newton's physics needed some fifty years to be accepted, and Copernicus was accepted almost a century after his death. In fact, he did not want his manuscript to be published before his death. I read this some thirty years ago; sorry, if I mixed some things, but this is how I remember this story.

The researcher should know the mainstream, to be able to go their own way.

I was posting this long deep answer, and then my phone died. So, I'll make it brief. Challenging theories, proofs, conjectures and being respectful, kind and willing to accept criticism are not mutually exclusive. The ultimate goal is knowledge. In mathematics, you, irrelevant of age or expertise, will still be highly respected if you find an exception to some long standing "theorem". If the original author is still alive, they will be the first to congratulate you. Having said that, I've come to learn that other disciplines are not like that at all.  All mathematicians are accountable to each other. We literally keep track of each other like a family. Look up math geneology project. Every, yes, every mathematician, PhD holder, is there with their advisor and their descendants.  If anyone acts like in an unprofessional way, you best believe the leaves start shaking. Just compare some of the more established older mathematicians.  All you need to know is the number of descendants. Many have none.  They're probably teaching high school classes, and doing so badly. For the younger ones (like me) look a step up and see who my math " parent" is, and you'll know much about me. I must admit I do use the tree when making preliminary hiring decisions. So, all you young math colleagues, choose your advisor wisely, it will literally set the trajectory of your future academic career. If you're not going into academia, then this is not so important.

 Ha-ha, I forgot. It's pretty small. I've got some famous ancestors :-)

http://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=144136

It's 4.

Dear all

A real scientist must have integrity. He must know what can do and what cannot do. His choice must be above human ethic bottom line. Personal benefit must give way to human’s benefit and the earth benefit.

How should a researcher deal with evidence that goes against the main stream of the established knowledge?

The researcher should demonstrate & publish the evidence & prepared to defend the evidence with open mind & ethicality.  Other mainstream researchers also should question, review & accept as appropriate the new evidence with open mind & ethicality by acknowledging that all the previous / existing theories & knowledge are meant to be overwritten by new evidence for continuous knowledge contribution.  If selfish personal agenda comes into play in research or recognition of a research evidence, then researchers are not doing justice to research & knowledge contribution.

I think that true research must be propositive. Including propositive approches, we must also notice and judge other researchers conclusions and statements that are in contradiction with our new adquisitions. But there are different styles for critics. We cannot prejudice wrong ethical intentions in other researchers. Then we must be polite in our way of expression, including when we are morally urged to affirm opposite opinions or scientiphical conclusions.

Dear Artur,

Your social diagnose means that simple and seemingly characterless people are allowed to say the truth. Are they?

If you are a thinker, a scientist or a philosopher, you probably have a commitment to truth. 

This is not always the case. At least in my country, some intellectuals are experts in the art of adapting their interpretations to capitalize on the political situation of the moment. This lack of intellectual honesty is a form of corruption. But despite their contradictions and double standards, many of them retain a strong public presence and even popularity. The moral of this story is that being useful to the powerful may be more profitable than defend the truth. 

As truth triumphs in the long run, but our life is short, I think that, in order to defend the truth against the mainstream, we can not afford to be naive. We need a strategy of persuasion. We may also need to seek supports and allies. That is, we have to do politics. A politics at the service of truth.

Dear Artur,

It seems a mathematical scholar with your abilities could easily disprove the models the so-called "climate scientist" cabal are using to fool a large number of the world's political leaders into believing that anthropogenic-CO2 is a major driving force in the Earth's (very long-standing and naturally driven) greenhouse heating cycle ... yet, I don't see you publishing anything on this topic ... are you among the men of hard [true] science doomed to the "chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination" that now find himself among the large scientific community who have been cowed-into-silence by these pretenders, and perhaps have become a member of today's new generation of the "un-critical and too obedient to the societal affairs" class that Professor Kastrup once rightly castigated?

My respects,

Bob

Dear Artur,

Thank you for treating my somewhat snarky "side-strike" with so much grace. Please continue using your iPhone without guilt (although I wish you would switch to a more morally-responsible non-Apple [I suggest Android-based] device when you next feel a compulsion to upgrade ... I assure you there will be less need to feel guilt whenever using it, in future, and likely also fewer snafus) ;-)

Best regards,

Bob

PS - please don't misunderstand my position ... I support the need to shift to alternative energy sources 100% ... but for other very good reasons than the "hoax" [yes, I admit many of these people operate in-good-faith, and are honestly self-deluded ... and now, firmly "bound by the chains of authority" of the arbiters-of-opinion within their own "discipline"] perpetrated by global-warming-alarmists ... and I do not "deny" that the Earth is currently in a global warming trend (albeit I do believe it is one of its natural interstadial periods, and not in any manner caused, or even significantly accelerated, by anthropogenic-CO2), and steps need to be taken to plan for rising sea levels (but adjusting man-made CO2 output levels is not going to have any effect)

PPS - also I believe Galileo was a very old man whenever he revealed his startling discovery (possibly knowing he was nearing death) ... I think that makes a big difference in how brave you are about what you may publish ... or say within hearing of folks who have the power to have your head removed ...  so, your point about either a person choosing a career, or ending-up like Galileo wasn't so sarcastic ... seems like pretty sage advice to me ;-)

Dear all

An expert researcher must have excellent competence to perceive that new evidences are true or false, insignificant or significant, supporting and opposing the theory which has been confirmed. An integrity scientist has to be brave enough to face opposing evidences, and make clear the original dates, because science only can run on truth.

Opposing evidence maybe is not against the main stream knowledge; it is just a part and a supplement to the theory.

This is a very good question.

What the human beings do not know is enormous compared to what they claim to know. No one, in his/her right mind, can boast knowing it all. Any existing knowledge is questionable & may be contested by more convincing evidences or proofs. When a better information is reached, a "true" scholar will declare it without taking into account any compromise.

When research is carried out, relative truth is sought & an attempt is made to provide answers for raised questions. In my view, discouraging a person or a team from doing good research is a crime against humanity.

There is an old senior lecturer who was prevented from research & was isolated in his university. What if that man was able to transform deserts into fertile lands through research?. Wouldn't the outcome of his work give benefits on global scale? I do not think that he will keep his results private. However, the prevailing injustice in this world has categorized persons & countries into doers of the action & spectators of the action as far as research is concerned. This ugly racist approach has been a constant recipe for obstructing human progress & it may continue to do so.      

Dear @Antonio, youf very fine question has 7 hard sub-questions. This thread will be a long one, as it deserves. 

Thanks dear @Nizar for very good answer!

Dear Artur: Your first answer was delicious and much more wise, honest and sincere than sarcastic. It did not failed the normal patterns. Thank you. In fact honesty, integrity, and verticality have no price for me as pointed by Ljubomir (I say and write always the truth wherever I am). I liked most of the answers and particularly the first answer of Bob, due to its simplicity. Given that I do not want to be badly understood, when I wrote ethical compromise in one question of the explanation of my main question, I meant self-compromise with ethics, and not cooperation, negotiation with anyone, or anything similar. In other words I meant obligation or commitment to ethics (see the sequence of questions). I introduced the words “compromise/commitment” now. Sorry if I was badly understood (I am not, and I did not intend to be malicious to anyone). I hope I can be totally understood (at least now) with respect to what I meant. Thanks to all.

Dear Artur: You look apparently a sincere person. However I must confess that I did not understand what you meant in your last answer by “One thing is being up against a fraudulent establishment. Another thing is to simply fail the normal standards. Am I too harsh?” Also I did not understand, at least some parts of your answer. Where did you see the question "How should a researcher deal with ignorants who say nonsense for example during their phd exam?”. Also, what was your role in the PhD discussion that you mention, and what was your role in the PhD thesis, that, according to your words, did failed (?) (You were the PhD candidate and it was your PhD Thesis?).

Dear Lawrence: These fraudulent techniques are very well known. Some persons forget that this is a public forum. Artur failed to give a reasonable explanation for his answer. Falsity is bad. To be clear Dear Artur. If you are intending to attack me or refer to my PhD Thesis, I never say a different thing that of what I think and my PhD Thesis was approved by unanimous decision. All my own Exams/Theses were always approved by unanimous decision. If to be VERTICAL is to fail "your normal standards", yes, I then am very proud to fail "your normal standards". Everybody that knows me (particularly hundreds of students each year, during many, many years) knows the quality of my work. I did never need benefactors or privileges. I only want/require that the public institutions work properly and with justice on the service of the community and not for the service of particular interests from persons, families or groups.

Dear Lawrence: It was not me that wrote those sentences. It was not me that wrote some “generalities” like: "How should a researcher deal with ignorants who say nonsense for example during their phd exam?"

Dear Artur,

As I have meant, this is a social diagnose:

„If Galileo Galilei had been a social nobody, then society would have not noticed his findings and claims which were in opposition to the state-of-the-art. There is scattered research papers in the internet, in low impact or unknown journals which is challenging contemporary views on how things work in life, but it literally has no impact and the claims remain unheard at large. It is not about being right or wrong.” 

However, regarding the number of literate or educated people in the time of Galilei, his views could not have been really dangerous for the feudal order or religious power.  They – in that time possessors of power – only could intervene immediately.   These days, many people are literate but their majority can be influenced easily and masterly.  From point of view of the actual power neither authors of unimportant journals or those publishing in high IF periodicals do not matter. Scientific facts and results generally have no real news value for common people and political processes. These days, the disinformation and the net of half-truths work fine.  

Thanks Dear Artur for your apologies, even if with some delay, and for confirming that you did not intend to attack me or refer to my PhD Thesis. It was not necessary have sworn that you do not know me … I suppose we all knew that already. Thanks also for confirming that I did post "the right question about scientific conduct". Surely that I agree with you when you say that “there are worse things than failing an exam...” We all can see.

See my answer in the RG Question bellow: “Are excuses hinder success?”

“Arrogance may hinder the true success. A sincere excuse may be a signal of humility, recognition of an error and a demonstration of character.”

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_excuses_hinder_success/1

Another perspective of this issue: “Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience” by Rory Coker, Ph.D., from 2001, in the link bellow. Some excerpts:

“The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing—in this case, about science itself. ”

(…)

“Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience”

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

In the RG Question, in the link bellow, I posted (in one answer) a conference paper from 1996 that has in the end an example of application of a numerical hydraulic model that compares the simulation in unsteady flow with the application of the rational method and whose results contradicted the main stream of the established knowledge on that time in Civil Engineering about the rational method. More than a problem of publishing or not, is the potential conflict with those that worked or taught previously on an opposite direction?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_current_best_approaches_known_and_in_use_for_computing_the_peak_storm_water_flow_rates_in_urban_drainage_systems

 There is a struggle, if you want to get ahead in research, you have to be open to ideas.

However you cannot publish by breaking established paradigms.

I remember that according to Rory Coker “Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted” at least by the scientific community. What is the duty of an Academician or Researcher when he/she sees that an evident scientific issue is being hiding or ignored? What is his/her social responsibility? Are we living in a culture of irresponsibility? I am remembering for example what happened during many years with tobacco and its consequences in the public health. I concur somehow with András and his social diagnose.

Dear Antonio and Artur,

I do not understand your pseudo-personnel situation. Participants in threads discuss and argue almost always in a general way. Facts and examples are very rare and nobody can conclude from the general arguing to specific cases of anybody else. This is simply impossible.  Both, taking offence and apologising were unnecessary. This affair was but a common and frequent human misunderstanding.  It has only a little morality: mutual understanding is difficult in electronic forums even among people of similar cultural backgrounds.  I am sorry for bothering you.   

Dear Antonio,

Dear All,

Yes, we are living in a time of cultural irresponsibility. Scientific facts, laws and their consequences can be deformed and “translated” by the media and politicians for the people in the street. Scientists and researchers have a separated pseudo-world which is maintained and controlled by political and economic power. Scientists cannot and some of them do not want to formulate efficiently their experience and cannot change the social-economic output of the human world performance and action. The most powerful invention of humanity, the democracy does not work properly. Without democracy the scientific results cannot be distributed and the progression of science is hampered.    

Ditto to Dr. Broxmeyer's ditto of Professor Bozsik ;-) Very-well stated, András!

Dear Lawrence: Of course that I agree with you with respect to publishing our research. We have the duty to publish and divulgate our results, particularly when they sound after being tested and verified (independently if they are in the same direction or against the mainstream). If the established power allows that publishing or not or allows us to disseminate our results, is another thing. It does not depend of us. My last question was mostly related with the social diagnosis expressed by András.

With respect to the article of Dr. Rory Coker, Professor of Physics in the University of Texas, Austin, that I cited and that I posted the link, I only wanted to give “Another perspective of this issue”. We should understand and respect all the different perspective of a given issue, or context, independently if we agree or not.

Lawrence

Well, you can always try.....

In Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a paradigm change is not set

by any single individual, it is a gradual change over a period of time. You can get

a lot of Sociology of Science from this source, and subsequent commentary.

i think one must stand with the truth...i.e. the findings...

Lord Buddha also says...you cannot find intellectual person in the crowd and there is no intellectuality in the mob.

I think it is possible to create a niche and negate the resistance from politics. In a certain way, politics always pay for the research in domains they don't even know. New ideas emerge because time and environment are ready for it. Creativity always find a way out.

I think there is another person/soul/mind/conscience whatever you can say....if you are not genuine with that than there is no mean to be there in the world.... i think Research or Truth or God ... All are same.... that exists internally and externally.... The main thing is what you are revealing is Truth or not....

Surely that in every human being there is a “person/soul/mind/conscience” that is genuine and that should be transparent “internally and externally”. I give always the benefit of doubt to everyone, and I try always to promote the best from every human being, as much as I can (is my duty as Professor).Unfortunately it looks that some persons are unable to distinguish between scientific knowledge and ethical standards from personal affairs and petty interests. I suppose that this is mostly an Educational problem. One of the answers of András is totally ironic with respect to this aspect.

“What do we really question when we do research, the knowledge itself and its essence or anything else?” Are we question the other researchers themselves? Are we question if the other researchers were wrong or failed? Can someone be so stupid?

I agree with your both answers Dear Rita. However, the problem may flourish mostly when the bad politics (with its structures of dominance and power) and bad examples of fake success come exactly from inside the scientific and academic community?

1. This is easy: if your result is correct and the evidence goes against a previously established fact then that fact is wrong and must therefore be thrown out the window. There is NO compromise. 

2. Research does not necessarily mean that we question existing knowledge - we may also expand on it, devise something previously unknown, or generalize what we know in some fashion. 

I agree with you Dear Michael. At least in a theoretical plan, is easy (in practice, may be not so simple).

With existing knowledge, I meant in a general scientific context, that is, what we already know and what can and needs to be studied or discovered scientifically. When we do research, at least in Engineering, we normally need to begin to understand deeply (as a first initial step) the matters that are already supposedly known about the subject under study (at least the best engineering practices known) and all the related issues already known in other scientific areas.

If you have full evidence and all explanations, first you present the work in conferences, get a spit on the face or spit on other people face, Be strong to justify your work, that will stimulate to at least a few to believe your work. 

Than submit a paper, will be tough to sell, But some time people like Serra Palin become more famous than real president, 

Circular reasoning and/or twisting facts to 'prove' a theory is something frequently encountered in archaeology as, it seems, in other sciences. From the archaeological viewpoint:

'It is manifestly important that we should preserve our own integrity, alongside that of the data. Here, the axiom attributed (perhaps erroneously) to Disraeli, but made famous by Mark Twain, springs to mind, namely that there are three degrees of veracity (or, according to Twain, three kinds of lies): “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” We have to be careful not to twist the facts of figures into a fiction that we may wish to believe and that we then lull ourselves into believing – and so ‘prove’ our own pet theory.'

The reference is from a paper on ResearchGate... Hope it's ok to quote myself? 

Thanks Dear Margaret for your pertinent and assertive answer. Perhaps you could post your paper in this discussion. Your answer made me remember a very well-known incredible expression in the world of football in my country: “What is truth today, tomorrow may be a lie”. I suppose that this cannot be accepted in the scientific and academic community. Any connection with the Gary Lineker expression in the 1990 World Cup: "Football is a simple game; 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win."?

In archeology, and principally in Engineering, perhaps is much easier confirming the authenticity of the results of research than in some other areas of knowledge? I can remember specially when some predictions are made for many billions of years in the future.

Antonio

My question is what you mean with EVIDENCE in your question. Please be more specific: can you provide (an) example(s)? As it is now the "evidence" can be that in the subjective eye of the beholder

Dear Lawrence,

Many thanks for the excellent examples how bureaucratic and state institutions with the help of mercenary scientists try to influence the perceived world of simple people. It would be interesting to assess the rate of mercenary scientists.

Dear participants, what do you think? I feel this rate must be over 50%.

Dear @ Subhash C. Juneja,

I especially like your phrase "... get a spit on the face." Although, we western scientists rarely execute such customs, literally, at conferences (except, in my own case, it did happen to me, entirely by accident I am certain, but in general conversation by a "sprayer" colleague ... and NOT as a reaction or objection to my presentation). 

Regards,

Bob

PS - though I have been retired from professional life for several years, my face may still be dripping with figurative spit it received for unpopular comments/conclusions made at previous conferences! *hee*hee*

Thanks, Dear Harry for your pertinent question. In fact, when I wrote my main question, I had doubts if the word “evidence” was the correct term in English. With evidence I meant proofs, facts, verification, validation and confirmation of a hypothesis. For example we have evidences or proofs that the earth is approximately an oblate spheroid (although not very distant from a sphere) or that the velocity of the sound in the atmospheric air is fairly lesser than the velocity of the sound in water.

In my view, scientific facts/hypothesis/theories are always based on some assumptions/parameters. These may change under the given circumstances. This is how development of science take place. 

Dear all

I attach a few pictures which I have published original data of fossilized tools. They are shaped by homo sapiens evidently. The tools exist authentically. The sites and the tools ought to be researched further.

DEAR FRIENDS: Possible short answers to my 1+7 questions:   

Main Question Response: With patience.

R1: Be always ourselves.

R2: Intellectual honesty, but without hurting unnecessarily nobody.

R3: No. There is a large zone of mixed behaviors.

R4: Just the knowledge itself. It is a huge pleasure that could not be reached otherwise.

R5: It is a good universal and it belongs to humankind.

R6: No.

R7: No. But unfortunately some power structures use it wrongly and frequently in that way.

Thanks for your reference request, António. For my self-plagiarism above, 

'....the axiom attributed (perhaps erroneously) to Disraeli, but made famous by Mark Twain, springs to mind, namely that there are three degrees of veracity (or, according to Twain, three kinds of lies): “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” We have to be careful not to twist the facts of figures into a fiction that we may wish to believe and that we then lull ourselves into believing – and so ‘prove’ our own pet theory...'

here's the source, a paper which addressed certain problems arising during the publication of specialist research in archaeology. The paper was intended to serve some purpose, by signalling possible avenues for progress. But please note, as an offering in a Festschrift for a specialist colleague, friend and fellow-classicist, its personal approach was also intended to have some entertainment value.

Chapter A northern odyssey: the first 26,000 samian vessels, and sti...

Thanks very much Dear Margaret for completing your previous answer with your reference that was missing: “A northern odyssey: the first 26,000 samian vessels, and still counting. [Issues encountered during the publication process of specialist reports on the archaeological horizon]”, and for enriching this discussion with the posting of your interesting chapter/paper.