Scientific research is based on the idea of review, so others can reproduce your results. Peer review should not be about insuring a pre-determined outcome. It certainly shouldn’t be about intimidation of reporters. Is shouldn’t be about politicians defining what the “real science” is. Especially when they’re repeatedly wrong about it. Who really should be angry? Scientists.
censorship
Vandalizing the Marketplace of Ideas
Everyone who’s been paying attention and has mere than a passing affection for freedom of speech knows that Internet culture is getting out of hand. Especially at times, it seems, in the little corner of Read more…
6 Comments
Steve Buchheit · December 8, 2009 at 10:06 am
I seem to remember making the same argument when the Bush Administration asked for it’s third review of the science because they weren’t happy with the answers.
S Andrew Swann · December 8, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Thing is, there’s a big difference between politicians acting like politicians, and scientists acting like politicians.
aeros51 · December 8, 2009 at 11:23 pm
There are a lot of scientists that are angry at the corruption uncovered in the CRU leak, but the politicians and media, as a whole, do not care. Eisenhower once warned against a science establishment over-reliant on government funding; he gave that warning in the next breaths after warning against the famous military-industrial complex. It’s sad that few remember it.
michelle · December 9, 2009 at 10:29 am
Aero51 – You nailed it. And now we’re seeing proof of what happens when Scientists accept government funding with the disclosure that NASA is also apparently manipulating data to reach a government/NWO conclusion. At least I assume NASA must be hiding something, otherwise why wouldn’t they comply with the Freedom of Information Act?
Steve Buchheit · December 10, 2009 at 10:01 am
Steve, are you expecting me to believe the “Shocked, shocked I am to find out gambling is going on here” line of this? Have you never experienced even second hand the struggle to obtain higher degrees (Masters and PhDs)? Or not witnessed tenure battles? Hell, even the battle of higher education types for the last smear of brie at a party can be fraught with high political tension.
This is why when the whole “scientists live in ivory towers” argument comes up people who deal with them snicker. And as Aeros51 points out, it isn’t exactly a new problem.
S Andrew Swann · December 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm
We’re not talking about jockeying for a tenured chair here, were talking about actual scientists corrupting actual science here. Yes there’s human nature, and no one likes seeing the sausage being made, but frankly that’s a horribly meager excuse, both for scientists and politicians. Just because a human endeavor has upon occasion prompted base and dishonest instincts, gives no one excuse for wallowing in them. Frankly, up until now I reserved my skepticism for the politicians selling snake-oil remedies; I didn’t think major players in the AGW debate were actually doing the statistical equivalent of pulling numbers out of their arse.
Related tangentially to the subject of this thread: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/12/peer_review.html
Comments are closed.