Loss of Credibility

i believe it is the person's personal integrity and credibility that will be suspect, rather than his expertise in any particular field. Whatever he says later, in whatever field, will be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

A proven, unbroken track record of true statements later with subsrantial proof may erase the earlier impression, but it is an uphill task.

Great link. Thanks. GA from me.

However, (tongue in cheek), one swallow does not make a summer

that depends on who is doing the swallowing!

Since only about 15 people on the planet understand anything Steven Hawking "says" it is difficult for us mortals to grasp the concepts in the first place. So who cares if he's wrong. Nobody understood what he meant in the first place.

Now, what about the furor over the the climate statements made by global warming advocates. It turns out that almost everything they were accused of lying about was indeed true. But that doesn't matter. If you believe that the planet is getting warmer you always supported the scientists.

If you are one of the misguided many who dismiss global warming as untrue, they had no credibility to begin with.

Depends on the circumstances I say.

Can't argue with the fact that in this case the damage to credibility was self-inflicted.

Cheers.

I understand Hawking perfectly.

At conference, in thin muffled mechanical voice, "Nurse is hot, wife is not."

Audience, gasping, ".Wwwh..why he said we've misunderstood the information horizon! Brilliant! He should get two Nobel prizes."

And so it goes.

Since only about 15 people on the planet understand anything Steven Hawking "says" it is difficult for us mortals to grasp the concepts in the first place. So who cares if he's wrong. Nobody understood what he meant in the first place.

It turns out that almost everything they were accused of lying about was indeed true.

Uh, do you mean that the GWA were right, or that they were indeed lying?

I mean that the accusations were exaggerated by people with political agendas who were not necessarily looking for credible evidence to support their position on the highly charged subject.

BTW, I personally believe that the earth is definately warming. Just as I believe that it will eventually cool again. The question is how much does pollution contribute to this warming trend (we all know that it does) and will human kind live to see it.

A real scientist would almost never make a statement in such a way as to be "proven false" in the disreputable sense I think you mean. That's not how true science works.

But the world is, sadly, full of idiots and charlatans who bear the scientist moniker. The former can be excused for making an occasional mistake due to unintended overzealousness or oversight and emerge with their credibility somewhat intact. History holds examples of such people who went on to make outstanding contributions. However the latter who, for example, make grandiose claims without consenting to peer review or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge found errors - they deserve no second chance.

Are ALL men worried with the V-thingy of oneself?

For there's lack of it to start with, Credibility would be non-issue ?

Then, it's like a case of no-love-lost.

Not if it was about global warming.

It's not so much about sin. It is about being trusted, convincing, and believable.

The person that most consistently embraces those attributes is the most credible.

You can tell bold face lies and still be credible if people believe you. Credibility has nothing to do with one's integrity, even though it is nobler to be principled.

I can't count the number of times that individuals have told the honest truth and still lost all credibility.

You are right. I am confused - by your remark.

What does intentional lying versus unintentional mistakes have to do with credibility?

Credibility is simply having a group that believes in what you say. As I have stated before, credibility does not imply honesty or any other virtue or vice.

Credibility has no relation with morals, just the fact that others believe or trust what you say is true.

Honestly, I don't think there is a simple answer to the original poster's question on how to regain credibility other than it depends.

We really have too little data on the whole scenario to determine the best course of action in his specific case. In the absence of that information everyone has taken off on their own interpretation of the problem.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought the discussion was about credibility, not integrity.

Didn't you introduce the reference to integrity?

Maybe we're just semantically disconnected.

One thing leads to another.

Look at posts 19 and 23.

Ok, you're right. I can see how 19 could have been precipitated by my own remarks earlier.

Then......................the rest is history.

The original post is ambiguous and does not specify whether it was a mistake or a deliberate lie. Only that someone

" ...makes a statement that is later proven to be false. "

The OP did ask about regaining credibility in other areas. I believe the simplified answer is admitted mistakes are likely (but not guaranteed) to be forgiven while known liars will have credibility problems wherever they go.

There are cases where researchers have made spectacular claims based on data they actually believe is accurate. However, their test methodology contained several flaws and erroneous assumptions. After many years of no one (including the original researchers) being able to recreate the experimental results, the claims appear false. While there is no evidence of intentional deception, the original researchers have severely damaged their credibility IMO. The sloppy methods and hugely optimistic conclusions have made all their work highly suspect.

You're right. It's the person with the stronger belief system that will prevail.

You could be the one with the right answer but if you aren't exactly sure that your answer is the right answer and I come along with the wrong answer and am more definite about my answer I will be more capable of swaying people's opinions over to my favor.

A primary example of this taking place is when you have an argument with someone and give in because you figured they are right only to later find out that you were the one that was right.

Hi Jan,

You said: "You're right. It's the person with the stronger belief system that will prevail". I agree with you but we have to open our eyes and see differently what's happened and happening. Galile prevailed humiliation and disgrace, and was rejected by many, mostly at that moment. Galile's competitor never said the truth ( the Church never lied because their beliefs ) but survived the storms. How come? Hawking will be not ejected or rejected from the British Academy of Science.

Competition creates mistakes and lies! This is the case between Hawking and the competitors.

Mistakes and lies can be premeditated or spontaneous, small and unsignificant or huge and shake the brains of millions. The "sender" can said the truth or the lie but the "receiver" will decide what is it.

"Is his scientific life over?" When the mistake is small and unsignificant, nothing happens. When is huge and shake the brains of millions, it can be damageable but not necessarily. What happens when the lie become a truth? Global warming and extection of living things (plants and animals) is in the question, including humans when drinking water become available just for a few, Gil.

Nicely written and I can see why the good answers.

However;

Integrity ≠ Credibility.

Again, the definition of credibility is strictly the ability to be believed and trusted, even if wrong or when willfully misleading people. Conversely, you can be 100% right, like Galileo was, and have no credibility if one's peers do not hop on your wagon.

I know we all aspire to be principled professionals and I, for one, would rather be principled than credible any day.

Thank you. I agree Integrity ≠ Credibility.

That is why I also mentioned a code of ethics. A person chooses integrity, while credibility is bestowed by others. IMHO integrity comes first and one can only hope to maintain credibility by demonstrating integrity.

Good thoughts!

Here are some questions for you...

why would one hope or aspire for credibility?

What does one do with it and whom does it serve? How?

We can say that credibility could improve our potential for a better paycheck, but beyond that does it serve a better purpose or does it mostly serve our ego?

What if we did not seek credibility at all? What if we simply acted out of a moral or nobel motivation with no regard for credibility?

You of course will lose credibility if you are real often wrong. Certainly you will not necessarily lose your integrity, it just may be that you are suited for a different job.

I did about a decade of carpentry to get by because it was more steady work, than what I was much better at. I would never say I was a great carpenter, but could say I was both credible, and had integrity enough to not ever think I could be the boss, who I did consider a master carpenter.

I hated him for not understanding fully that I respected his skills, but that he didn't seem to understand that I knew a lot more about simply moving heavy things with the appropriate rigging tools, than he did. It was also imperfect of him to order me to do something that broke my hip and hand and pelvis, but I have told that story years ago when writing about safety issues and work.

"It is better to be important than famous." is one of my sayings. I agree that integrity is of greater value, than credibility, or fame. Suggested reading on the range of issues involved are actually fine in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. They are not so clearly in stark conflict depicted in works by Nevil Shute, such as in No Highway- (title confirmation lacking, partly because titles were sometimes different for the same book as in the fact that A Town Called Alice, is the same book as The Legacy. - I love the hell out of Round the Bend.)

For these issues, which are not strictly speaking engineering issues I do look to certain classic novels, and of course history...

i agree with you with my Personal experience i was discarded as an engineer to day the same guys express how wrong they were and how right i proved about the plant performance in the long run as long as you are honest to yourself your credibility will be intact

crm

ex-power user

There doesn't appear to be any shortage of credibility on this forum.

By credibility, do you mean those round brown things we used to use for bases when we played baseball in the pasture?

I would personally like to thank each and every one of you for your posts. I finally figured out what my problem is....I have always aspired to be incredible, you know, like the Incredible Hulk, AAAAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Is that a problem?

I guess striving to be the best you can be is a noble goal. How does that relate to your loss of credibility (if you don't mind telling us)?

Credibility like respect has to be earnt, which is hard.

Loosing it is easy.

If you are prepared to take a few knocks on the way, learn from your mistakes, admit when you are not 100% right, then you have my vote.

but if your head is so far up "where the sun don't shine" and have the attitude that everyone is a moron except you.. then you will never have any respect or credibility from anyone..... even if you are right!

It depends on the damage or loss caused by his wrong theory.They say except God everyone makes mistakes"it is human to err".You need not discard him.He might do well in other areas.We have seen or heard doctors amputing wrong or healthy legs or ruin a patients life by wrong diagnosis or wrong medicine or giving high doses as well as collapse of buildings or bridges due to not checking quality of material or workmanship by construction engineers or even design engineers etc. But the work of a scientist could only be checked by other scientists.

It seems to me that E=MC^2 has been proven false and yet I don't think Albert has been considered any less creditable.

So what if someone says something that is proven wrong later.

Back in the 1600's when coffee and tea were first being introduced in the European culture the "Experts" in England were proclaiming that coffee and tea were the cure all for everything that ails you. When at the same time the Dutch "Experts" were doing studies on the addictiveness of coffee and tea because of the complaints they were hearing from the textile workers that said they couldn't get their day started without having their first cup of coffee.

What are "theories" but someone taking pieces of evidence and explaining how they perceive the evidence to fit together. Their theory holds true until someone else comes along and sees that evidence differently and performs some of their own experiments from a different direction that produces different results and provide a theory of their own.

Look how modern day psychology got its start from phrenology (the study of personality determined by the bumps on your head.) Phrenologists are recognized as starting the process to modern day psychology. Their theories were wrong but they opened the door to finding the new discoveries.

I think the only scientists that lose credibility over their theories being wrong are the ones that won't accept their theories being wrong after new evidence has been presented that gives birth to a new theory.

I tend to lose any credibility of a person who (especially a politician) is caught in a lie. He may have done some great things in the past, but that one slip ends his career. This is very common with politicians who run for an office and all kinds of "dirt" is dug up during the campaign. Many times the candidate is defeated because of past indiscretions. The more damaging the deed, the harder it is to bury it. Credibility may be lost forever.

Many politicians who did crime to humanity have escaped unhurt and approved by UN and by the so called super powers as well.one who has strong backing(eg US)will escape

For that one politician, he lied more than once before and during his first term and yet he was re-elected after the scandle.

So I don't think the issue of credibility is an issue for anything anymore. People don't care. Look at how many people believe what's printed in tabloids even though the tabloids have a notorious reputation for printing false information.

The Government is full of liars and cheaters. Everyone tells you that you can't trust a politician yet when ever some scandal takes place concerning the Government everyone believes what the government tells them. In general people are sheep and they are stupid. You find individuals that are smart and well informed but the sheep outweigh the individual.

I like the conspiracy theories that are suposedly debunked by the Government. These conspiracy theories are derived from evidence that has been covered up, ignored or misrepresented that some individual has picked up on and asked questions about. So who do you take seriously, the dominate conspiracy theory or the Government's explanation? We all know that politicians are liars and cheaters and can't be trusted and yet we take the Government's explaination anyway.

Well, the economy was all right and the level of conflict internationally was lower. Far as things that really mattered there would appear to be some successes that outweighed his odd idioysincratic predillictions. (fun with spelling) I'm told he (Clinton) really wanted to be the president of a women's College? I mean in that area of his life, it would appear to know him as pathological. Frankly I think you have a right to privacy, and in that area I can make a case to myself to lie, obscufacate, redirect, or mumble.

Possibly one ought not go into politics if one has a need for any sort of secret sex? Are we best ruled by eunicks? Now that I am 57 and have been married for almost a decade I don't seem to have time for affairs. Might be a perfect time for me to more commit to political life?

Jack Nickleson had it right when he said, "There are two people you lie to, your girlfriend and the cops."

We ended up with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", as a national DOD policy...

In relation to Oil Drilling Rigs in the oceans, due to threats to the food supply represented by blow outs and spills, along with securing energy needs, rigs need obviously to be protected from attacks. It would be better if the defense of the rigs from attacks by terrorists, or nationstates like N. Korea was not dependent on corporation employed mercenaries, but government, and governments. Course if you have to hire mercenaries simply because they can do a better job, then you do. However it is a sad state of affairs when the US would need to hire mercenaries.

Apparently evidence does not support the postulation that it was the North Koreans that torpedoed Deepwater Horizon. Either way the threat of it is exposed, as if the First Gulf War, wasn't enough. There is a credible threat on the part of some of premeditated poisoning of the atmosphere.

The careers of John Edwards, and Mark Sanford are interesting since I knew them before they were discredited. These guys give you some idea about what is wrong with the Senate, when they get in. One was dumb, and the other powermad.

Frankly I don't know why Viagra is legal, and pot not? How long between using Viagra, and flying is legal for a Part 121 Commercial Pilot?

- they might go blind anysecond!

-asked Edwards to look into evidence of how long from joint to joystick doctors would certify as safe. Revealed himself as an attorney uninterested in evidence. Of a sudden cop cooped in front of my apartment, and video of my wife flying was stolen.

Spoke to Sanford when working on a commercial for his Senate run. Spoke to him about Multipolar Power balance as now, as opposed to Bi Polar Power Balance of the Cold War Era. His eyes glazed over.

I was once asked to sign a paper saying I would never write about my experiences making a movie. It is weird what some people ask you to sign. I mean this was not some internal training film for the CIA! It was a B Horror Movie!

Guys like me who worked on airfields and on movie sets are the ones who work around people with fame and power.

So then I have drifted from issues of personal credibility to issues of judgement about when to lie, and when not too? Is the smart man, the one who simply reads between the lines, and knows what is credible out of the mouth of a well dressed professional liar, and what's not?

"my perception of his credibility might have actually increased"

totally true... as wonderfully exemplified by David Letterman. (and to a lesser degree, Tiger Woods)

As a matter of fact, in the Hindu religion, even now, it is the Goddesses who are worshipped. Lakshmi for wealth, Saraswathi for knowledge and so on. We even apologise to Mother Earth for touching her with our feet when we wake up in the morning. The husbands of these goddesses are also worshipped as most powerful, but just as in our case, they are quite henpecked. Woman as evil ? Never heard of it.

I think the key word here is "SALESMANSHIP". A clever salesman can sell most anything including "freezers to Eskimos". Like some lawyers, they may lose credibility, but they keep on making money.

That depends upon what you mean by false. Did the person LIE. Did the person make a human mistake. If the person lied then his personal integrity is the problem and they are not to be trusted. If they made and honest mistake then we are all human.

yes, all things are possible..... and myths are more about what has happened and will repeat, than most care to believe.

People generally concern themselves with what is real and credible here on this earth and in their world.

Scientific statements that later prove to be false,( unless deliberate falsifications), are caused by a failure to identify sources of error in experimental design, data collection, or statistical analysis.

Data tampering - deliberately suppressing or overlooking data to the contrary - is reason for loss of scientific credibility and that loss is permanent. It is becoming more standard that conflicts of interest - motives that favor one outcome over another - are being stated in the publications. With so much 'science' under corporate sponsorship this is necessary. Corporate sponsors can and do routinely withhold "negative" studies from publication (at least, in the pharmaceutical and medical research area). Scientists on the other hand must publish to advance their careers.

Errors in design which slip through the peer review process and lead to wrong conclusions are generally forgiven if or when they are proven false. But a scientist whose work has produced wrong conclusions will have to be thinking about and identifying the sources of error in past work, to produce valid and credible research in the future. It is normal for review publications to be critical of methodology and of questionable statistical analysis in the studies reviewed. This doesn't cause the researchers to lose credibility but does encourage them to do better in future.

I had to skim through some of the comments here because there are so many. I enjoy thought-provoking discussions, but this one just doesn't grab me the way some do. Whether or not someone can get "credibility" back after a mistake is not very relevant to my life. If the question is being posed as "What would you do, if such and such happened to you?", then it would be more relevant to readers. For instance, "If you were Tiger Woods, what would you do to try to redeem yourself?" And would you now have a chance at being a successful Real Estate agent? Or scientist?"

Sometimes the questions raised seem primarily to be raised so that others will remark at how thought-provoking the question is/was. Sorry. My take.

Err to Human is a well known saying and scientists are just human beings. The only difference is their dedication with focus.

If the mistake is realized by the scientist with acceptance, he deserves his status as scientist. He should in turn work out the next alternate without giving up.

Success and failures are in all games and failing should be accepted as a happening and not as a crime.

Failures are teachers in scientist's journey to success/ truth.

If any scientist claims he is always right, it means madness.

Better double check and verify with your own eyes even the minutest details before making postulates.

I don't believe its over unless you yield to the forces, science as with other career areas do have a lot of adverse believers who always try to replace some former
theory with a new hypothesis and they hope theory! However it is not always
that simple to replace scientific conclusions, so when it does happen other scientist
tend to band together to discredit, ridicule or ignore the positive accomplishments
that the scientist have made, you must continue to work towards positive no matter
what popular oppinion might think if you truely believe in it and you have used the
Scientific Method to conclude it you will rise again! rwengin

That's OK unless your work is proven (by your peers) to have gaping holes, bad experimental practice, flawed analysis etc.

It's not necessarily over, but you tend to land on your face rather than your feet, and it takes a lot to turn things around - to regain your credibility - to have anyone regard your subsequent results and conclusions with credulity.