No, I merely said that the scientist is the one responsible for the quality of their own work. Any critiques you may have for the tools which they use don't lessen this responsibility.
>No, I merely said that the scientist is the one responsible for the quality of their own work.
No, you expressed unqualified agreement with a comment containing
“And yet, we’re not supposed to criticize the tool or its makers?”
>Any critiques you may have for the tools which they use don't lessen this responsibility.
People don’t exist or act in a vacuum. That a scientist is responsible for the quality of their work doesn’t mean that a spectrometer manufacture that advertises specs that their machines can’t match and induces universities through discounts and/or dubious advertising claims to push their labs to replace their existing spectrometers with new ones which have many bizarre and unexpected behaviors including but not limited to sometimes just fabricating spurious readings has made no contribution to the problem of bad results.
You can criticize the tool or its makers, but not as a means to lessen the responsibility of the professional using it (the rest of the quoted comment). I agree with the GP, it's not a valid excuse for the scientist's poor quality of work.
The scientist has (at the very least) a basic responsibility to perform due diligence. We can argue back and forth over what constitutes appropriate due diligence, but, with regard to the scientist under discussion, I think we'd be better suited discussing what constitutes negligence.
But you just said we weren’t supposed to criticize the purveyors of AI or the tools themselves.