4 ms·

Theatrically quitting is performative. Journals publish nonsense all the time and this is widely known, and also inevitable because science is hard. Journals th

by gizmo 5y ago

Theatrically quitting is performative. Journals publish nonsense all the time and this is widely known, and also inevitable because science is hard. Journals that refuse to publish controversial findings hinder the scientific process by presenting an illusion of consensus. Consensus isn't everything, and contrarian opinions in science are fine, and publishing contrarian research is fine too. Scientific journals aren't arbiters of Truth, and we don't need to be protected from bad opinions.

AstralStorm 5y ago
It's not journal refusing to publish a controversial finding, but publishing insufficiently reviewed highly flawed paper, giving it high profile exposure. Think Sokal affair except this time lives are at stake.
- gizmo 5y ago
  Lives are -always- at stake. Everything in science and society is high consequence. Delay approving a good drug? People die. Prematurely approve a bad drug. People die. Every dollar allocated in the wrong place results in people dying needlessly. It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end.
  - dazag 5y ago
    Oh my god, some sense in the platform, most of the people just speak nonsense. How easy is to control people with the most stupid post by a reporter.
    - Cipater 5y ago
      Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end. This is the comment you're praising? May as well just replace journals with blogs if that's the sentiment.
  - bipson 5y ago
    Oh wow. Nobody said that the journal should not have published because it is not interesting. You should instead focus on the given argument of "scientific standards" and the Scientific Method, the implicit rule-set of science (to be fair, you can question that too, but you didn't). A Journal uses peer review to avoid publishing things that do not conform to a certain base level of scientific standard, e.g. comparing the wrong numbers/things, or ignoring causation vs. correlation, drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. A peer is supposed to flag such things and remind the authors of the flaws.
  - amazingman 5y ago
    > It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. It's definitely the job of scientific journals to weed out papers that draw strong conclusions — e.g. 2 vaccine-caused deaths for every 3 COVID-caused deaths — based on bad data/assumptions — e.g. every death in a vaccinated individual is a vaccine-caused death. Especially when the subject is a matter of public health during a public health crisis.

by gizmo 5y ago

AstralStorm 5y ago

It's not journal refusing to publish a controversial finding, but publishing insufficiently reviewed highly flawed paper, giving it high profile exposure. Think Sokal affair except this time lives are at stake.

gizmo 5y ago
Lives are -always- at stake. Everything in science and society is high consequence. Delay approving a good drug? People die. Prematurely approve a bad drug. People die. Every dollar allocated in the wrong place results in people dying needlessly. It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end.
- dazag 5y ago
  Oh my god, some sense in the platform, most of the people just speak nonsense. How easy is to control people with the most stupid post by a reporter.
  - Cipater 5y ago
    Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end. This is the comment you're praising? May as well just replace journals with blogs if that's the sentiment.
- bipson 5y ago
  Oh wow. Nobody said that the journal should not have published because it is not interesting. You should instead focus on the given argument of "scientific standards" and the Scientific Method, the implicit rule-set of science (to be fair, you can question that too, but you didn't). A Journal uses peer review to avoid publishing things that do not conform to a certain base level of scientific standard, e.g. comparing the wrong numbers/things, or ignoring causation vs. correlation, drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. A peer is supposed to flag such things and remind the authors of the flaws.
- amazingman 5y ago
  > It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. It's definitely the job of scientific journals to weed out papers that draw strong conclusions — e.g. 2 vaccine-caused deaths for every 3 COVID-caused deaths — based on bad data/assumptions — e.g. every death in a vaccinated individual is a vaccine-caused death. Especially when the subject is a matter of public health during a public health crisis.