3 ms·
All science starts with a hypothesis. If the evidence he presents supports his, then what's the problem? Peer review will illuminate if he is dishonest in his a
by pvnick 10y ago
All science starts with a hypothesis. If the evidence he presents supports his, then what's the problem? Peer review will illuminate if he is dishonest in his analysis. The bigger risk is the converse problem, where nobody around is challenging the consensus. History is rife with examples where the consensus is wrong.
- anigbrowl 10y agoHis whole point is that he's not happy with the peer review process because it keeps reaffirming the existing consensus. I mean look, I could argue that gravity isn't really A Thing and that on some planets stuff floats in the air and it's really difficult to ever touch the ground. Prove me wrong! Ha - you can't! Congress should give me money to fund my research - think of the potential payoffs!
- UncleMeat 10y agoTwo problems: 1. There are plenty of places to publish junk science. This is all somewhere like Cato needs to keep arguing that climate change isn't real and that is enough to convince half of the lawmakers. Even if the science is bad, it can easily influence policy. 2. You can make this argument until the end of time. When have we done "enough" research on alternative hypotheses? Never, of course. We can keep on demanding more research and put off emissions regulations indefinitely.