6 ms·

We went through this sort of censorship of government scientists and departments in Canada with the conservative Harper government: http://www.cbc.ca/news/techn

by vmeson 10y ago

We went through this sort of censorship of government scientists and departments in Canada with the conservative Harper government: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzz... The US should not put up with any, even a temporary form of such censorship of the parts of the government that are doing scientific research and environmental stewardship. There should be another march in a week or two to support scientific freedom. Trump does not determine scientific truth, peer review and the scientific method does.

dghughes 10y ago
Yes it's amazing we put up with it for so long and then voted for Harper again!! My guess is it was apathetic young voters and frightened Boomers who lost 1/3 or half of their retirement savings in 2008 just as they were going to retire. Harper even changed Government of Canada to the Harper Government too bizarre at the time even more bizarre looking back. There was supposedly a secret portrait library of all portraits of Harper viewing by appointment only.
- vkou 10y ago
  The Liberal party being in shambles for... 8 years probably had more to do with a Harper victory then his accomplishments did.
acomjean 10y ago
Fwiw at the march in Boston there were chants for science...honestly something I thought I'd never hear.
- stephancoral 10y ago
  At the protest in NYC people were shouting "CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL" Very sad that's something we need to be screaming in the streets.
dnautics 10y ago
Peer review most certainly does not determine scientific truth.
- FLGMwt 10y ago
  Arguable, but lack of peer review certainly should inspire a lack of confidence in results.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    Do you not believe grigori Perelman's proof of the poincare conjecture? Do you believe in arsenic life? The first is still not peer reviewed, and the second very much was so. These are some more well known cases. Having been there I'd say probably about 40% of peer reviewed material in chemistry and biology is seriously flawed. We really have this problem where peer review is held up as a scientific standard. It shouldn't be. The scientific standards are independent replication and confirmation through prediction of a derivative result. That is not to say all scientific peer review is flawed. If it appears in the journal organic syntheses I'll believe it, every time. (In order to get published an editor has to repeat the experiment in their lab, there are often liner notes)
    - ChrisLomont 10y ago
      >Do you not believe grigori Perelman's proof of the poincare conjecture? Yes, because his peers spent serious time checking it and found no flaws. Peer reviewed doesn't need publication in a journal. >Do you believe in arsenic life? No, because peers found it flawed. You're conflating peer review with simply getting past initial peer reviews. The more peers that review a claim, the more likely it is correct. The flawed ones are almost always not reviewed much at all. And I'd bet there is a significant gap in correctness between things that are barely peer reviewed over things that are not.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cantankerous 10y ago
ojii 10y ago
There's a plan for that apparently: https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC

by vmeson 10y ago

dghughes 10y ago

Yes it's amazing we put up with it for so long and then voted for Harper again!! My guess is it was apathetic young voters and frightened Boomers who lost 1/3 or half of their retirement savings in 2008 just as they were going to retire. Harper even changed Government of Canada to the Harper Government too bizarre at the time even more bizarre looking back. There was supposedly a secret portrait library of all portraits of Harper viewing by appointment only.

vkou 10y ago
The Liberal party being in shambles for... 8 years probably had more to do with a Harper victory then his accomplishments did.

acomjean 10y ago

Fwiw at the march in Boston there were chants for science...honestly something I thought I'd never hear.

stephancoral 10y ago
At the protest in NYC people were shouting "CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL" Very sad that's something we need to be screaming in the streets.

dnautics 10y ago

Peer review most certainly does not determine scientific truth.

FLGMwt 10y ago
Arguable, but lack of peer review certainly should inspire a lack of confidence in results.
- dnautics 10y ago
  Do you not believe grigori Perelman's proof of the poincare conjecture? Do you believe in arsenic life? The first is still not peer reviewed, and the second very much was so. These are some more well known cases. Having been there I'd say probably about 40% of peer reviewed material in chemistry and biology is seriously flawed. We really have this problem where peer review is held up as a scientific standard. It shouldn't be. The scientific standards are independent replication and confirmation through prediction of a derivative result. That is not to say all scientific peer review is flawed. If it appears in the journal organic syntheses I'll believe it, every time. (In order to get published an editor has to repeat the experiment in their lab, there are often liner notes)
  - ChrisLomont 10y ago
    >Do you not believe grigori Perelman's proof of the poincare conjecture? Yes, because his peers spent serious time checking it and found no flaws. Peer reviewed doesn't need publication in a journal. >Do you believe in arsenic life? No, because peers found it flawed. You're conflating peer review with simply getting past initial peer reviews. The more peers that review a claim, the more likely it is correct. The flawed ones are almost always not reviewed much at all. And I'd bet there is a significant gap in correctness between things that are barely peer reviewed over things that are not.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cantankerous 10y ago

ojii 10y ago

There's a plan for that apparently: https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC