Why do you keep putting Savory in the middle? I don't understand.

I said your examples were about something completely different. To be fair, I just went back and re-read it and I was wrong about that statement However, I think it is incorrect for a different reason.

I have been through the science degree process far more times than the average "scientist." In my case I have the added benefit of having done it over the course of a few decades, so I have direct experience in how teaching has progressed from the 90s to now. I myself have teaching experience, and I know how things are taught, both in a lab and in a classroom. I also have industry experience and I know how it is practiced.

While I can't say that your scenario is impossible or has never happened, I can say that in general it is not true, at least not at the good schools. It is very common that the people who teach the courses are the same people who write the books. That takes out several layers of your example. While not ubiquitous, for me it was fairly common. From there, it is very, very common that a great deal of the teaching is followed up with lab experiments. It is really hard to create fraud in a lab experiment, especially because these same experiments are done over, and over, and over again, by millions of people.

In my experience the fraud is what is left out, in the teaching of trust, and in the taking axioms and teaching them as truths.

Please stop bringing Mr. Savory back into this. I agree with what he said completely, just not his "100%" statements of it. That, I assert, and am trying to explain, is not the truth. I honestly don't understand why you would think he is saying the Truth about such a blanket statement. Your trust in his words as Truth, and continually pushing it as such, even though they are almost certainly exaggeration for the purposes previously stated, are exactly the type of pushing of fraud you and I are both talking about as being bad...

Why do you keep putting Savory in the middle? I don't understand.

I said your examples were about something completely different. To be fair, I just went back and re-read it and I was wrong about that statement However, I think it is incorrect for a different reason.

I have been through the science degree process far more times than the average "scientist." In my case I have the added benefit of having done it over the course of a few decades, so I have direct experience in the how teaching has progressed from the 90s to now. I myself have teaching experience, and I know how things are taught, both in a lab and in a classroom. I also have industry experience and I know how it is practiced.

While I can't say that your scenario is impossible or has never happened, I can say that in general it is not true, at least not at the good schools. It is very common that the people who teach the courses are the same people who write the books. That takes out several layers of your example. While not ubiquitous, for me it was fairly common. From there, it is very, very common that a great deal of the teaching is followed up with lab experiments. It is really hard to create fraud in a lab experiment, especially because these same experiments are done over, and over, and over again, by millions of people.

In my experience the fraud is what is left out, in the teaching of trust, and in the taking axioms and teaching them as truths.

Please stop bringing Mr. Savory back into this. I agree with what he said completely, just not his "100%" statements of it. That, I assert, and am trying to explain, is not the truth. I honestly don't understand why you would think he is saying the Truth about such a blanket statement. Your trust in his words as Truth, and continually pushing it as such, even though they are almost certainly exaggeration for the purposes previously stated, are exactly the type of pushing of fraud you and I are both talking about as being bad...