3 ms·
You started off with the idea that research papers "can't tell you what should be done", which it seems like you disagree with now? > 'Discussion' is normally
by i_love_limes 6y ago
You started off with the idea that research papers "can't tell you what should be done", which it seems like you disagree with now?
> 'Discussion' is normally an invitation to scientific discussion, not a political one
To think that those are so distinct is perhaps naive.
Thanks for the link, it does seem to be a call to action as you said, but backed by many studies across many disciplines. Which would make it both a scientific and political.
- oytis 6y agoIt was more meant as an imperative, as in, "a president can't despise his own citizens", even though we empirically know it's not true, but... To me is a huge abuse of the authority of science. The results of science normally lie above any democratic discussion. No mater how you vote and what your values are COVID-19 exists, and global warming exists either. If you publish an opinion piece - even if it's a well-informed opinion - as a scientific paper, you are basically saying "here's what the policy should be, and you're not entitled to discuss it, because we know better". I'm not against scientists having an informed opinion an political matter, and I'm not even against scientific journals publishing opinions if they consider them important enough, but there should be a distinction in this case between the part where science is published and the opinion column.
- i_love_limes 6y agoThey do that already... Distinguishing between 'results' and 'discussion'...