4 ms·

Within science, many ideas are "controversial" because they're demonstrably wrong. Such ideas should not be "published" in a "journal" in some misguided attempt

by bedobi 5y ago

Within science, many ideas are "controversial" because they're demonstrably wrong. Such ideas should not be "published" in a "journal" in some misguided attempt to give them the exposure they're justifiably denied everywhere else, that's not how science works. (example off the top of my head: chiropractics and other psuedoscientific nonsense) Other ideas are "controversial" because there isn't enough evidence to support them, and there may never be. (example off the top of my head: neanderthals and their capacity for abstract thought, art and language) A journal for arguing about such ideas is OK I guess but kind of pointless because it's essentially just people's opinion about things that cannot be proven, and not really science. Yet other are "controversial" despite having solid evidence because of, for lack of a better term, politics within the field, or politics in general. To me, these ideas would be the only ones worthwhile having a journal for, and such a journal would have to very very carefully select only articles that fit this category. Instead, the first issue of this "journal" is full of garbage "articles" that are basically just people's opinions on identity politics, creationism etc? Just, what?

COGlory 5y ago
I could not disagree more with this take. >Within science, many ideas are "controversial" because they're demonstrably wrong. Such ideas should not be "published" in a "journal" in some misguided attempt to give them the exposure they're justifiably denied everywhere else, that's not how science works. (example off the top of my head: chiropractics and other psuedoscientific nonsense) They absolutely should be published. How else can I, as a scientist, be able to determine what is right and what is wrong? For example, in my field there was a small scandal regarding the publication and claims of a macromolecular structure, and to what resolution they had been solved. http://xray0.princeton.edu/~phil/Facility/Guides/ABCtransporter.html http://xray0.princeton.edu/~phil/Facility/Guides/ABCtranspor... I'm glad those papers were published because the truth was eventually determined, and nearly everyone in the field had a good lesson to learn from it. Not all the same lesson, either. Don't gatekeep - just falsify. Otherwise we won't know when we end up wrong.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  > Don't gatekeep - just falsify. Amen. Gatekeeping is not science.
  - not2b 5y ago
    So, everyone who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine that produces free energy just gets published, because to do otherwise is "gatekeeping" and "not science"? No, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and simply submitting such claims without evidence and then whining about being censored isn't science.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      I don't know if you really need extraordinarily strong evidence for perpetual motion. Just plausible evidence for every aspect of physics which must be changed because of it. If you forget to consider existing experimental evidence for, say, conservation of momentum and just quietly assume it doesn't hold or fail to notice the impact on it, that wouldn't be rigorous. But if you show that all such experiments were done with error greater than what's needed for your perpetual motion, it should be fine.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      Peer-reviewed publication != science
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    A certain amount of gatekeeping is necessary for good science in the modern world. This isn't the 15th century where anyone can verify the results of scientific experiments. Scientific research is often expensive and complex and isn't accessible to the average person.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Gatekeeping is essentially the only service provided by journals. We could argue about whether it is actually a useful service, but anti-gatekeeping journal seems like a contradiction.
jkhdigital 5y ago
You are conflating the abstract idea of "science" with the peer review process. Peer review is merely a social construct for filtering and disseminating knowledge among specialists. The fact that some novel scientific idea first showed up in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that peer review is an essential component of the scientific method.
naasking 5y ago
> Within science, many ideas are "controversial" because they're demonstrably wrong. I don't think incorrect facts are controversial within science, they're just wrong because they've been falsified. Also, this isn't a science journal, it says on the main page that it's an interdisciplinary journal for controversial ideas. Maybe some science will get there too, but science isn't its focus.

by bedobi 5y ago

COGlory 5y ago

I could not disagree more with this take. >Within science, many ideas are "controversial" because they're demonstrably wrong. Such ideas should not be "published" in a "journal" in some misguided attempt to give them the exposure they're justifiably denied everywhere else, that's not how science works. (example off the top of my head: chiropractics and other psuedoscientific nonsense) They absolutely should be published. How else can I, as a scientist, be able to determine what is right and what is wrong? For example, in my field there was a small scandal regarding the publication and claims of a macromolecular structure, and to what resolution they had been solved. http://xray0.princeton.edu/~phil/Facility/Guides/ABCtransporter.html http://xray0.princeton.edu/~phil/Facility/Guides/ABCtranspor... I'm glad those papers were published because the truth was eventually determined, and nearly everyone in the field had a good lesson to learn from it. Not all the same lesson, either. Don't gatekeep - just falsify. Otherwise we won't know when we end up wrong.

jkhdigital 5y ago
> Don't gatekeep - just falsify. Amen. Gatekeeping is not science.
- not2b 5y ago
  So, everyone who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine that produces free energy just gets published, because to do otherwise is "gatekeeping" and "not science"? No, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and simply submitting such claims without evidence and then whining about being censored isn't science.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    I don't know if you really need extraordinarily strong evidence for perpetual motion. Just plausible evidence for every aspect of physics which must be changed because of it. If you forget to consider existing experimental evidence for, say, conservation of momentum and just quietly assume it doesn't hold or fail to notice the impact on it, that wouldn't be rigorous. But if you show that all such experiments were done with error greater than what's needed for your perpetual motion, it should be fine.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    Peer-reviewed publication != science
- wittycardio 5y ago
  A certain amount of gatekeeping is necessary for good science in the modern world. This isn't the 15th century where anyone can verify the results of scientific experiments. Scientific research is often expensive and complex and isn't accessible to the average person.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Gatekeeping is essentially the only service provided by journals. We could argue about whether it is actually a useful service, but anti-gatekeeping journal seems like a contradiction.

jkhdigital 5y ago

You are conflating the abstract idea of "science" with the peer review process. Peer review is merely a social construct for filtering and disseminating knowledge among specialists. The fact that some novel scientific idea first showed up in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that peer review is an essential component of the scientific method.

naasking 5y ago

> Within science, many ideas are "controversial" because they're demonstrably wrong. I don't think incorrect facts are controversial within science, they're just wrong because they've been falsified. Also, this isn't a science journal, it says on the main page that it's an interdisciplinary journal for controversial ideas. Maybe some science will get there too, but science isn't its focus.