5 ms·

This is a pretty powerful article. Regardless of your thoughts on global warming, it's rather upsetting to see scientists' careers ruined through having opinio

by robk 17y ago

This is a pretty powerful article. Regardless of your thoughts on global warming, it's rather upsetting to see scientists' careers ruined through having opinions differing than the gatekeepers of the peer reviewing system.

Hoff 17y ago
Some of the gatekeepers of the peer review systems have had a long and celebrated history here, and sometimes to the detriment of the purpose of the review process. The experiences of John Harrison and the Board of Longitude and the Royal Society, or the initial reception of the work of Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren around H. Pylori, both come to mind. Most any large shift can involve overcoming very strongly-held beliefs; of sticking your neck out.
KirinDave 17y ago
This isn't a particularly powerful or insightful article. The entire subject is blown out of proportion and distorted until hardly any of the actual facts remain. 1. Scientists ruin their careers by repeatedly attempting to discredit theories they cannot find the evidence to discredit (or proving claims they cannot find proof to claim). If a truly compelling set of studies discrediting global warming trends came out, you can be sure that many publications would be eager to publish it. This is how science works, and how it has worked historically. It's a surprisingly stable environment of meritocracy. Politics intrude, as in any human endeavor, but we'll get to that in: 2. Differences in opinion in the peer review process are as old as science. That is why there are multiple publications and multiple standards for entering into those publications. The whole notion of "scientific consensus" is built around assumptions like schisms such as this. If everyone agreed about the exact criterion for publication we'd only have a few (perhaps regional) scientific publications (and then we'd truly be in trouble). 3. Science is about consensus, but that implicitly accepts dissent. People argue for awhile, a consensus is formed, and then things blow over. Seldom are careers ruined. For an example, see Einstein's extremely controversial claims that eventually became the next major stepping stone for physics. People violently opposed his propositions at first, and now we look at him is one of the greatest minds in human history. The difference here is that there are active sources of misinformation trying, for whatever non-scientific reasons, to drum up controversy around the global warming issue of anthropogenicity. This issue is still under active debate and research, but unlike many other subjects in a similar status (e.g., quantum physics) there are "deniers" who will not accept any positive evidence against their claim and will resort to any means, social or otherwise, to make their point of view supreme. Some might argue this is warranted because climate science is making predictions that require us to radically restructure our industry and energy infrastructures to the tune of massive sums of money. To be honest, I think this complaint is shortsighted. Scientific predictions, even those in the limbo state between "well-accepted" and "just a theory" that we are calling "consensus", have always dictated the allocation of resources. Consider the exorbitant cost of the LHC, which is one of the single greatest achievements of human engineering and physics.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Science is NOT about consensus. "Scientists" have no monopoly on truth. Science is about facts. Observation. Falsifiable, objective, and independently reproducible theories. They either produce predictions that match reality or they don't. It doesn't matter if the scientific establishment believes or disbelieves in the hall effect, or special relativity, or high temperature superconductivity. They are either real or not independent of the opinion of the majority of scientists. One hopes that the scientific community is sufficiently objective and disciplined to embrace true science when they see it, but that may not be (and has not been) the case always. Consensus should follow science but consensus cannot create science.
  - Retric 17y ago
    Consensus is what separates science from philosophy. It's created by the theory with the most support that can stand up to attacks from all sides. What people forget is consensus is built by convincing highly intelligent and highly educated people with their own pet theory's that they are wrong. Unlike elections there is not ballet stuffing and no theory needs to win. PS: Ask a astronomer happened before the big bang and they will say "we have no clue" but wait or prod for a little bit and each will provide their own little pet theory.
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > Science is NOT about consensus. The entire scientific method is built around consensus. As science is a process subject to continual refinement. Almost all propositions put forth by science are ultimately incompletely, inaccurate in some cases, or limited to specific situations we can test. So, the scientific process (and the method itself) rigorously challenge all propositions. Some simply fall apart under the weight of their own inconsistency, which is what happens when results can not be replicated. But those which can be replicated achieve consensus until a more accurate proposition can be made. Thusly, Newtonian physics was supplemented and updated by Relativity. Wave-particle duality gradually replaced competing theories. Et cetera. These are consensus opinions. They are not facts. They're the closest models we can get based off our observations. The core of the scientific method is that things are given a continuous opportunity to be falsified.
tomjen2 17y ago
While that is bad, what is worse is that it destroys science and without science we may as well just shoot us.

by robk 17y ago

Hoff 17y ago

Some of the gatekeepers of the peer review systems have had a long and celebrated history here, and sometimes to the detriment of the purpose of the review process. The experiences of John Harrison and the Board of Longitude and the Royal Society, or the initial reception of the work of Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren around H. Pylori, both come to mind. Most any large shift can involve overcoming very strongly-held beliefs; of sticking your neck out.

KirinDave 17y ago

This isn't a particularly powerful or insightful article. The entire subject is blown out of proportion and distorted until hardly any of the actual facts remain. 1. Scientists ruin their careers by repeatedly attempting to discredit theories they cannot find the evidence to discredit (or proving claims they cannot find proof to claim). If a truly compelling set of studies discrediting global warming trends came out, you can be sure that many publications would be eager to publish it. This is how science works, and how it has worked historically. It's a surprisingly stable environment of meritocracy. Politics intrude, as in any human endeavor, but we'll get to that in: 2. Differences in opinion in the peer review process are as old as science. That is why there are multiple publications and multiple standards for entering into those publications. The whole notion of "scientific consensus" is built around assumptions like schisms such as this. If everyone agreed about the exact criterion for publication we'd only have a few (perhaps regional) scientific publications (and then we'd truly be in trouble). 3. Science is about consensus, but that implicitly accepts dissent. People argue for awhile, a consensus is formed, and then things blow over. Seldom are careers ruined. For an example, see Einstein's extremely controversial claims that eventually became the next major stepping stone for physics. People violently opposed his propositions at first, and now we look at him is one of the greatest minds in human history. The difference here is that there are active sources of misinformation trying, for whatever non-scientific reasons, to drum up controversy around the global warming issue of anthropogenicity. This issue is still under active debate and research, but unlike many other subjects in a similar status (e.g., quantum physics) there are "deniers" who will not accept any positive evidence against their claim and will resort to any means, social or otherwise, to make their point of view supreme. Some might argue this is warranted because climate science is making predictions that require us to radically restructure our industry and energy infrastructures to the tune of massive sums of money. To be honest, I think this complaint is shortsighted. Scientific predictions, even those in the limbo state between "well-accepted" and "just a theory" that we are calling "consensus", have always dictated the allocation of resources. Consider the exorbitant cost of the LHC, which is one of the single greatest achievements of human engineering and physics.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Science is NOT about consensus. "Scientists" have no monopoly on truth. Science is about facts. Observation. Falsifiable, objective, and independently reproducible theories. They either produce predictions that match reality or they don't. It doesn't matter if the scientific establishment believes or disbelieves in the hall effect, or special relativity, or high temperature superconductivity. They are either real or not independent of the opinion of the majority of scientists. One hopes that the scientific community is sufficiently objective and disciplined to embrace true science when they see it, but that may not be (and has not been) the case always. Consensus should follow science but consensus cannot create science.
- Retric 17y ago
  Consensus is what separates science from philosophy. It's created by the theory with the most support that can stand up to attacks from all sides. What people forget is consensus is built by convincing highly intelligent and highly educated people with their own pet theory's that they are wrong. Unlike elections there is not ballet stuffing and no theory needs to win. PS: Ask a astronomer happened before the big bang and they will say "we have no clue" but wait or prod for a little bit and each will provide their own little pet theory.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  > Science is NOT about consensus. The entire scientific method is built around consensus. As science is a process subject to continual refinement. Almost all propositions put forth by science are ultimately incompletely, inaccurate in some cases, or limited to specific situations we can test. So, the scientific process (and the method itself) rigorously challenge all propositions. Some simply fall apart under the weight of their own inconsistency, which is what happens when results can not be replicated. But those which can be replicated achieve consensus until a more accurate proposition can be made. Thusly, Newtonian physics was supplemented and updated by Relativity. Wave-particle duality gradually replaced competing theories. Et cetera. These are consensus opinions. They are not facts. They're the closest models we can get based off our observations. The core of the scientific method is that things are given a continuous opportunity to be falsified.

tomjen2 17y ago

While that is bad, what is worse is that it destroys science and without science we may as well just shoot us.