I wouldn't say that at all. Getting nominated sure has no impact on the validity of their work. Absolutely agree on that. However, winning would typically mean your work has been heavily scrutinized by experts in your field. I'm not sure how that doesn't lend validity. Certainly I can think of no example of a Nobel Prize being awarded for research that was then proven to be fraudulent.

[–] FiniteBanjo 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Well I'm no expert, but just a few:

2019 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, Gregg Semenza - found guilt of data fraud and digital photo manipulations.
Knut Ahnlund resigned over the 2004 Literature prize going to Elfriede Jelinek, claiming it caused "irreparable damage" to the reputation of the awards.
Peter Agre was awarded the 2003 Chemistry prize for the discovery of ion polarity water channels in cell membranes when it had already been discovered in 1986.
The 2008 Chemistry prize went to three people for work on a green flourescent protein as a biological tracer, the first sample of which was cloned and distributed by Douglas Prasher 2 decades earlier who was excluded from the prize recipients.
Wangari Maathai was given a Nobel Peace Price in 2004 despite her beliefs that HIV was a bioweapon used on Africa.
Multiple Economics winners have directly opposing theories of Economics so no matter how you slice it at least one of them is just wrong.

And keep in mind, these only include winners not just nominations. In an ideal world all science is vetted and peer reviewed responsibly and the Award is meaningless. In a slightly better world than the one we live in at least the Nobel Prize nominations would be vetted pretty strictly and be without controversy.

[–] kuneho@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

roll them eyes

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

The first one it should be pointed out was not the Nobel Prize data. It was from a separate project. I've never seen a single article about about that in which that's not the first paragraph by the way so I can't believe you missed it.

Every other thing you've listed is not a matter of falsifying data. I mean I'm not going to comment on the economics and literature ones cuz that's clearly is nothing to do what we're talking about, and discussions about people's political beliefs and whether or not more people should have been credited for them about prize is again nothing to do with the data.

I am pleased that you kept it to Winners though, since that was very clearly the criteria of our discussion. And as we pointed out here all these prizes are very heavily vetted.