3 ms·
Your first paragraph is dead wrong. Science is not supposed to be about which side can pay more to "support their thesis with evidence". That would clearly lead
by rcthompson 11y ago
Your first paragraph is dead wrong. Science is not supposed to be about which side can pay more to "support their thesis with evidence". That would clearly lead to a blatant bias toward collecting evidence that favors the desired outcome. Also, it's not important to sustain every side of every debate in perpetuity. If that was the case, nothing would ever get done. Once there is enough evidence, collected in an unbiased fashion, that one side becomes untenable, the correct action is to put that debate to bed.
Your second paragraph is irrelevant. The problem is not publishing this research, the problem is the intentional deceptions about both conflicts of interest and the lack of peer review.
Your third paragraph is also dead wrong. Disclosure of all conflicts of interest is critical, not to mention required in order to publish in any respectable scientific journal.
- n0us 11y ago1. I said nothing about "what science is supposed to be about" Research costs money. If I chose to fund a study about the positive effects of a coal industry on the lower class it is within my right to do so and in no way excludes someone else from funding a study on the negative effects. 2. Sure, but this is tangential to my comment at best. 3. my belief is not "also dead wrong" Disclosure of conflicts of interest is not the same as disclosure of funding sources in all cases. I'd also like to point out that your comment is an example of what I consider to be the type of poorly thought out middle brow discourse that perfectly characterizes the worst form of discussion on the internet. Unilateral statements like "your wrong" contribute nothing at all.