Firstly, I think you are confusing different kinds of lies. Lying is bad for society when it is used to get an unfair advantage, i.e. to commit fraud. But lying in other contexts, for other reasons? If he tells his wife she looks great when, objectively, she's no Helen of Troy, should he also be stripped of tenure?
Secondly, teaching defense against the dark arts generally requires giving the students a working knowledge of the dark arts. Would you object to the publication of Robert Cialdini's Influence on the same basis?
Thirdly, by illustrating how easy it is to damage the free exchange of information, he helps individuals become more resistant to lies and helps the internet develop new ways to fight misinformation. Think of him as a vaccine to the actual 'information terrorists.'
You might be right that lying in research is not legally fraud. It just breaks the academic contract and so people do get stripped of tenure for it alone, not for making money out of it, and rightly so. If you think that this kind of lying is cost-less, you will hardly find anyone who had ever been to a university agreeing with you.
This guy is not teaching defence against the dark arts. He is teaching the dark arts.
I do not object to the publication of anything at all, except of deliberately fabricated lies. Anywhere, with whatever artificially constructed post-justification.
And yes, it is easy. That is exactly why I am concerned and it should not be encouraged.
That's not what I was trying to say :) Generally lying in research isn't okay and I would consider it fraud, since the liar stands to gain by it. But he wasn't lying in order to publish a paper about 19th century serial killers, he was educating some students and some of the internet about not believing everything you read, albeit through deliberate deception.
I don't believe this is wrong, because the end justifies the means. I get the impression we'll therefore have to agree to disagree on most of these points, since our ethical systems are basically incompatible †.
† From your statement "I do not object to the publication of anything at all, except of deliberately fabricated lies. Anywhere, with whatever artificially constructed post-justification."‡ you make it clear that the action is what is important, whereas I would judge on both the motivation and the consequences.
‡ One clarification though, if I may: Do you agree that in this case there is a simple and logical pre-justification (or that one could argue there is one, even if you disagree with it)? Does that make any difference to you, since you specifically call out "artificial" and "post-"?
The end does not justify the means. The means determine the ends.
The professor was not "educating some...about not believing everything you read"; he could do that without creating new hoaxes. Certainly there are plenty to go around.
I don't know what his real motivation is. Who does? There are certainly powerful interests about that would love to see the internet, as a free information source, discredited and destroyed. Is he explicitly connected with them? I don't know. His actions certainly don't look to me like coming from someone who means well. All I know is that he is requiring his students to produce fraudulent publications, specifically on the internet.
Even if he means well, I believe that he is mistaken and so I reject your justification. So does society and courts who have always (rightly) condemned liars. Because lying is easy, dangerous and damaging. It does not strengthen its targets, it more likely destroys them. In this context, the target is the internet.
Look, let me bring up a simple analogy. Suppose you concoct some lies on e-bay to get your 'marks' to send you money. Suppose you are eventually hauled up to court of law and you come up with: 'your honour, I was just teaching those shmucks not to believe everything they read (your words).
It is just not going to wash, is it?
OK, he might not be getting paid by those whom he fools but he is getting paid by his college for teaching wrong history on the internet.
I hear what you are saying - there is a lot of rubbish out there on the internet and you should not believe it. However, most of it is produced in good faith by enthusiastic (and sometimes mistaken) individuals exercising their free speech. This guy is a professional setting up a university program of studies to generate lies professionally and deliberately. That is not the same thing.
I disagree. He's not teaching "wrong history", he's teaching students to think outside the box and identify the weak points in the fabric of the internet knowledge base. What they choose to do with these skills is up to them - perhaps they will invent a more powerful citation system for fact checking, or even enhance the security of vulnerable financial processes.
"most of it is produced in good faith by enthusiastic (and sometimes mistaken) individuals exercising their free speech" - citation needed. By definition, you will never know what the biggest lies out there are because they're never exposed, so your assumption that "all" lies are childish mistakes is wrong.
What about those who consult (wikipedia, redit, and wherever prof. Kelly is going to strike next) casually? Do you always go back to see that the information you quickly looked up has not been deleted later by some professor playing games with your credulity?
PS. I never said or assumed that 'all lies are childish mistakes'.
There will always be hackers, and there will always be security experts whose job is to keep the hackers out of the system. But you need to think like a hacker to do a good job.
Secondly, teaching defense against the dark arts generally requires giving the students a working knowledge of the dark arts. Would you object to the publication of Robert Cialdini's Influence on the same basis?
Thirdly, by illustrating how easy it is to damage the free exchange of information, he helps individuals become more resistant to lies and helps the internet develop new ways to fight misinformation. Think of him as a vaccine to the actual 'information terrorists.'