Sigmund Freud und die Lauterkeit

In his carrier as physician, Sigmund Freud claimed various and surprising successes in healing patients. An evaluation of those cases in which evidence independent of Freud's publications has been discovered reveals a lifelong pattern of Freud claiming successes, patients, however, not being cured, and Freud being aware of this. The elements of this pattern are matched with the components of the legal definition of fraud.     

Aufklärung durch Täuschung,Die Natürliche Magie im 18.?Jahrhundert

Mechanical speaking figures are very popular in the 18th century. Purportedly they are not only able to answer questions but also to divine. The enlightened philosophers are alarmed in the face of apparent fraud fostering superstition. The most successful weapon against the ‘charlatans’ seems to be the public imitation of their tricks. This leads to a ‘division of labour’ between popularisers of science, instrument‐makers and even some showmen, and natural philosophers. The former expose the imposture thanks to their special skills, the latter support these fraudbusting activities with their growing cultural authority. This paves the way for a close alliance between professional magicians and scientists in the 19th and 20th century exposing spiritistic mediums and spiritual healers.     

Vertrauensvorschuß und wissenschaftliches Fehlhandeln — Eine reliabilistische Modellierung der Fälle Abderhalden,Goldschmidt, Moewus und Waldschmidt‐Leitz

Reliabilist philosophy of science considers scientific misconduct a transgression against the principles of good cognitive practice. Good practice in research is characterised by the reliability, efficiency and fertility of the cognitive processes involved. The reliabilist approach is closely connected to the idea of mutual cognitive dependency of the research community. Trust in the testimony of others is not an inevitable but a favouring factor of scientific progress — and misconduct damages the testimonial chain, respectively the principle of trustworthiness. Within the reliabilist framework, the main focus on questionable research is not on whether or not there are fraudulent intentions (that means particular mental events of the past), but on recognisable consequences for the research community. Criticising the constructivist modeling of questionable research, we reconstruct certain contributions by Emil Abderhalden, Richard Goldschmidt, Franz Moewus, and Ernst Waldschmitz‐Leitz as serious misconducts respectively frauds. We also show that specific social factors — often regarded as “apologising” conditions — decisively interfere with the principle of trustworthiness in the scientific community.     

Elefanten im Mond,Der prekäre Status des wissenschaftlichen Instruments

The article focuses on a 17th century satire by Samuel Butler, which depicts scientists investigating the moon with a telescope and making fraudulent reports of the phenomena seen. This text is part of the Restauration discussion about the right uses of instruments and the right habits of knowledge production. I show that Butler and other critics of experimental science relied on a concept of evidence that was opposed to the practice already being followed by the Royal Society. Contrary to the belief of their denouncers, artificial devices like the telescope, the microscope and the barometer allowed scientists to constitute phenomena which could not be falsified by an appeal to everyday experience.     

Semantics of learned quackery in the 17th and 18th centuries

In the 17th and 18th century republic of letters the problem of scientific fraud was met with a discourse of charlatanism. Departing from Johann Burchhard Menckes famous treatise on the Charlatanry of the learned the following essay traces how the accusations of academic and scientific misconduct put in terms of 'charlatanry' primarily helped to produce the new species of the erudite 'charlatan'. Facing a growing complexity of scientific culture this new frame of meaning, structured by numerous examples of scientific misconduct offered a new way of orientation in the world of learning. But besides its cognitive impacts the discourse of charlatanry allowed to create symbolic boundaries, which determined decisions upon the affiliation or non affiliation to the new forming scientific community by separating honourable from dishonourable scientific personae. Speaking of charlatanry therefore always implied a social distinction as much as a scientific. The discourses on charlatanry also mirror differentiations within the scientific field. At first dominated by a critique built on courteous or bourgeois values, the scientific field later on developed its own criteria of appraisal like authorship, originality, transparency etc. Attracting the attention of a further growing public sphere, the explicit verbalisation of claims not relating to the value system of a republic of letters primarily concerned with the production and distribution of knowledge finally led up to a more implicit moral economy of science. A change that at a large scale level can be described both as an internalisation of the values of scientific conduct and differentiation between justiciable and unjusticiable transgressions of the norms set up by the scientific community.