3 ms·

So, if these 'scientists' were trying to get a publisher fired and a journal shut down for publishing a paper that cast doubt on the scientific consensus, would

by crux_ 17y ago

So, if these 'scientists' were trying to get a publisher fired and a journal shut down for publishing a paper that cast doubt on the scientific consensus, would that be pretty damning in and of itself? I don't think so: That was the exact situation when a paper was published that attempted to cast doubt on evolution, and I believe that, far from being damning, it was fully justified. Whether you judge that action as censorship most foul, or simply upholding standards, depends thoroughly on how you felt about it in the first place.

pyre 17y ago
You're comparing "discredited scientist lashes out at his critics (some of whom are poor journalists and/or political mouth-pieces)" with "scientists try to silence someone who doesn't tow the party line." The only reason that I would find the latter to be okay, would be if the paper itself was fairly substandard. Then I could see a boycott of (or outrage against) the journal in question for publishing something that doesn't meet certain standards in an effort to maybe gain readership through controversy (e.g. if they publish a paper where the only 'evidence' presented that supports certain conclusions is quotes from the Bible or the Qur'an, I wouldn't think it that outrageous for people to be disappointed in the journal for even allowing it to be published). I would appreciate a link to the incident that you are talking about as I don't follow the news that closely anymore.
- crux_ 17y ago
  > "discredited scientist lashes out at his critics (some of whom are poor journalists and/or political mouth-pieces)" with "scientists try to silence someone who doesn't tow the party line." But here's the rub: How do you know which is which? Well, if you agree with one party, it's the former; and if you don't, it's the latter. The incident I mentioned is the centrepiece of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" -- a documentary about how the evolutionary biology community allegedly silences anyone who doesn't tow the party line.

by crux_ 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

You're comparing "discredited scientist lashes out at his critics (some of whom are poor journalists and/or political mouth-pieces)" with "scientists try to silence someone who doesn't tow the party line." The only reason that I would find the latter to be okay, would be if the paper itself was fairly substandard. Then I could see a boycott of (or outrage against) the journal in question for publishing something that doesn't meet certain standards in an effort to maybe gain readership through controversy (e.g. if they publish a paper where the only 'evidence' presented that supports certain conclusions is quotes from the Bible or the Qur'an, I wouldn't think it that outrageous for people to be disappointed in the journal for even allowing it to be published). I would appreciate a link to the incident that you are talking about as I don't follow the news that closely anymore.

crux_ 17y ago
> "discredited scientist lashes out at his critics (some of whom are poor journalists and/or political mouth-pieces)" with "scientists try to silence someone who doesn't tow the party line." But here's the rub: How do you know which is which? Well, if you agree with one party, it's the former; and if you don't, it's the latter. The incident I mentioned is the centrepiece of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" -- a documentary about how the evolutionary biology community allegedly silences anyone who doesn't tow the party line.