Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
I disagree. It was published in the journal Science, which has a perfectly valid reputation as a scientific journal. Your argument is of the 'no true Scotsman' variety. It is bad science, I agree, but as a currently published study, it counts as part of our cultural definition of science.
Now, another part of that definition is that we can disprove and otherwise retract it from our understanding, and that's excellent, and I have faith that we will eventually do so with this particular study. But even in the hard sciences, there are many examples of flawed studies that sit around unchallenged for decades, or even continue to be referenced after they've been rejected.
This is my experience: when science is good, it's completely fucking amazing. But just like humans as a whole, the majority of it is plagued with human error. The amazing parts are worth it, I think--I'm definitely not saying we should cancel all learned inquiry. I'm just saying 1.) most researchers do not deserve anything approaching a pedestal, and 2.) the world could do with better oversight of study design, at least over studies coming out of major universities. |
Case in point: Andrew Wakefield.
There isn't a fail-safe mode to prevent people who deliberately falsify data, as Wakefield did. The scientific community has heretofore relied on its members to meet a minimum standard of basic honesty. Since Wakefield, editorial committees have to wrestle with the question of whether everything in a submission is false.
Researchers, on the whole, do not demand a pedestal. As I said before, these people are some of the most brilliant among us, and they are drastically underpaid and neglected. We benefit from their work and never bother to ask who deserves our thanks.
The one thing you can count on is that 'science', i.e. serious researchers, will demand truth and honesty. Over time, errors and deliberate falsehoods will be exposed and corrected. People who turn away from 'science' because things change over time are wholly mistaken: it is the honesty of true research that demands that errors, once exposed, be admitted. It's the charlatans who claim infallibility and demand unquestioning adherence.
Clod - what exactly is your experience of scientific research? You say that it's fucking amazing but plagued with human error. Have you any first-hand experience with it? What are your credentials?
My credentials have been questioned and examined in this forum very recently, as being pertinent to my qualification to comment on scientific findings. In the same spirit, I would like to know your educational background.