2 ms·
I would say that if Science ran an article they are morally obligated to seriously consider a refutation of that article, and if no problems can be found, publi
by kadoban 7y ago
I would say that if Science ran an article they are morally obligated to seriously consider a refutation of that article, and if no problems can be found, publish it.
I did not get the sense that the refutation was seriously considered, and my impression is that the original article has not been retracted in any way, correct? So Science's public stance could be seen as the original article is still the best truth they've published on the topic, which feels wrong.
Wiggle room may be appropriate if the article is already retracted or has already been refuted.
- ajross 7y agoNo, that's wrong. The purpose of Science is to publish new and interesting results. Some of those will be wrong. It happens. That's science. Sometimes the fact that existing consensus is wrong is notable, and if so, sure: publish the refutation. But what is up with this "moral obligation" nonsense? Being wrong isn't "immoral", it's just a mistake. You're trying to apply ideas of politics and rhetoric to argue that Science somehow "advocated" for a result that made democrats look good and republicans look bad, and that they're now "obligated" to make democrats look bad too. And that's wrong. Like I said if you want political argument fodder go to Slate (or, sadly, HN). That's not what Science does.
- kadoban 7y agoI don't actually care at all what the subject of the study is, so the Democrat/Republican thing is just a total nothing to me personally. Being wrong is not immoral. Being wrong, telling bunches of people the wrong information, and then making no effort to fix your mistake once you have the chance is at least dubious on my personal moral spectrum.