Do you trust the scientific establishment?

[emp]

Err.... that is how it is done, in an ideal world.

Peer reviewers will look at an article (which is normally given to them without them knowing who it is from) and judge it on scientific merit.

People being people, they might try pushing an agenda, simply be slacking in their judgement or being greedy for something... but the process is as sound as can be.

There are initiatives to make all this even more transparent, such as the move for open scientific data, which would open the underlying data to everyone, and more..

You, on the other hand seem to be trying to push an "anti-scientific" agenda here.

So, pray tell, who should do the oversight, and how do we safeguard these "judges of science"?

::emp::

 

[nevele]

So, pray tell, who should do the oversight?

 

[nevele]

and how do we safeguard these "judges of science"?

 

[Ar Scion]

Peer reviewers will look at an article (which is normally given to them without them knowing who it is from) and judge it on scientific merit.

Yeah, that solves everything doesn't it.

If the conclusion of the paper reinforces a position against the accepted dogma, it doesn't matter who it is from, the peer reviewers will feel obligated to do their level best to reject the paper.

I know of at least one ideologically unpopular paper that that was rejected because of a spelling mistake.

To think that everything is solved by removing an individual's name ignores the fact that the ideology represented by the paper is the real basis of discrimination.

Instead of dramatically accusing me of being anti-scientific, why not understand the issue instead.

 

[Moxie]

I understand your overall point, as there were tobacco company funded scientists who said smoking wasn't dangerous, etc. All scientists aren't corrupt though, anymore than all cops are.

Remember the climategate emails?

What you are suggesting was done over that issue - oversight inquiries by the UK government and such.

Climategate inquiry: no deceit, too little cooperation - environment - 07 July 2010 - New Scientist

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you only have time to read one article, I would suggest the following from the Economist, which isn't exactly an environmentalist hippie publication :


The controversies in climate science: Science behind closed doors | The Economist

"...new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere."


In the past if someone thought they were unfairly rejected from a journal, what could they do? Write a letter to a newspaper that would confuse the editor? With the internet it's easier to get things out there and eventually the cream will rise to the top, in theory at least.

 

[Ar Scion]

I understand your overall point, as there were tobacco company funded scientists who said smoking wasn't dangerous, etc. All scientists aren't corrupt though, anymore than all cops are.



What you are suggesting was done over that issue - oversight inquiries by the UK government and such.

Climategate inquiry: no deceit, too little cooperation - environment - 07 July 2010 - New Scientist

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you only have time to read one article, I would suggest the following from the Economist, which isn't exactly an environmentalist hippie publication :


The controversies in climate science: Science behind closed doors | The Economist

"...new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere."


In the past if someone thought they were unfairly rejected from a journal, what could they do? Write a letter to a newspaper that would confuse the editor? With the internet it's easier to get things out there and eventually the cream will rise to the top, in theory at least.

The thing is, there is a mechanism in place to fight police corruption.

The scientific equivalent- "peer review" is woefully inadequate. Valid research will get fucked anonymously due to differences in dogma.

On the issue of a review of the emails, Michael Mann was a professor at Penn State, and their internal investigation found nothing wrong in his conduct. Could the fact that they were getting grant money for climate change research have anything to do with it?

It should be unethical to alienate or malign researchers unless their research is bad. Doing it for personal or philosophical reasons amounts to discrimination and harassment.

Are blogs enough? Time will tell. I wouldn't bet on it because the internet is as much a popularity contest as anything else. The only just way to handle this is legal intervention.

 

[emp]

Hmmm...

I still have the impression you have something specific in mind.

And you still have not answered my question:

Who should do the oversight, and how do we safeguard these "judges of science"?

::emp::

 

[Ar Scion]

Hmmm...

I still have the impression you have something specific in mind.

And you still have not answered my question:

Who should do the oversight, and how do we safeguard these "judges of science"?

::emp::

There is no clear cut solution to the problem.

Opening up channels of private communication to public scrutiny is always an option. It might not solve the problem, but scientists who object clearly have something to hide.

 

[emp]

Hahahaha...

"Give me all your mail, including your love letters, your shopping list and your fleshlight orders or you got something to hide."

All that needs scrutinizing is the scientific research. By scientists, cause you really need to understand the shit.

What I do criticize and what does need to change is that all raw data needs to be made available.

Right now, the "establishment" often only publicizes the summaries / statistical results, making another researcher repeat the entire experiment.

This is done to protect your assets and ensure future research and profits.

THIS needs to change.

But already, more and more scientists are joining the open data movement, and I see no way around it in the future.

If the bone you want to pick is with the climate research, that is a valid one. A lot has been done wrong and data has been fudged.

Still, the points stand.

There was a very interesting article in one of the last issues of the "Spiegel", about the "Munich Re", which is one of the world's biggest re-insurers (insuring insurances against losses).

All of their data (and their data is very valid, as there is a business reason to have very good data of various angles) points in the same direction --> global warming and a worsening of climate conditions.

Ah, here is the link to the English version:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,715053,00.html

::emp::