The scientific method is selected in order to bring objectivity to knowledge... right? Well, that actually depends on how the system works. Not only is the literature overrun with false and phony papers - which make it easily through peer review, they rarely are replicated, and when they are, results which are noncongruent are frequently discarded due both to procedure "unknowns" which are not published, and to data availability which is denied by the original submitters.
The system is set up to reward submission of novel discoveries and not to reward replication, which is the very self-correction mechanism which scientists tout. So the "science" being reported daily is very likely false, corrupted, and not replicated. These findings along with a number of publication stings are reported in the Economist, along with the failure of modern science to adhere to the very principles which give science its lofty reputation. Claiming what doesn't exist (honest data and objective replication) is dishonest. If this keeps up, scientists will have the same public reputation as child molesters and Atheists.
5 comments:
Science has devolved into an ego-centric, agenda-driven profession more concerned with obtaining funding and social privilege than with learning and discovery. Peer-reviewers are not as thorough and honest as people are led to believe, resulting in a rather large amount -- over half -- of false-positives slipping through the cracks. Even their ability to self-correct mistakes is questionable at best. What was especially revealing was when Dr. Bohannon submitted deliberate mistakes within this report and the peer-reviewers largely failed to notice even a couple. This speaks volumes about their credibility or lack thereof.
Everyone (or just one :P , yes, you, Michael ),
I share that sentiment, but do not like to be too outspoken about it, because politics ultimately play a big role, and dialogues may become confusing for both parties, and later, people focus more in politics than the actual problem that actually needs to be solved.
Ultimately, what do you expect when so many STEM undergrads (like me) dislike to read even the basics of philosophy of science, from Popper to Dyson?.
I agree peer-review is not going any better nowadays, and many relatives I know as scientists with PhDs just go and teach subjects at a High School level, because the publishing of dissenting conclusions even using the same methodology, is something that peers find as heresy many times over, the typical Publish or Perish, and so on...
Kind Regards.
I should clarify something here. There are a large number of honest scientists, most of whom work outside of ideological enclaves (universities). Industry employs numerous scientists who are honestly engaged in the pursuit of specific pieces of knowledge. Because their knowledge is proprietary, they do not publish as much; but the information becomes known through patents, later on, when the knowledge is deemed valid and useful.
Even some industry science becomes tainted by greed for profit, but not nearly as much, because honest, useful products are more profitable.
Some academic science is funded by industry in pursuit of future product utility (carbon based sheet conductors comes to mind).
There is a place for non-ideological science pursuit; you just have to look for it.
I should add that the only "sciences" which are ideologically moribund are those which are either required for Atheism or those which are single-discoverer and not really empirically refutable using current techniques (if the single discoverer has the power of reputation, then reputation trumps other non-refutable arguments). There might be others, too; those two came to mind first.
For example, Atheism requires evolution, not just of life, but also of everything surrounding life, such as mind, consciousness, qualia, agency, culture, morals, etc. So evolution and sociology are tainted by ideological necessity.
Cosmology is not a pursuit necessary to Atheism, but it is inhabited by powerful and famous Atheist cosmologists.
Stan,
Yes, exactly!!
Kind Regards.
Post a Comment