3 ms·

A Paper That Says Science Should Be Impartial Was Rejected by Major Journals

9 points by mckern 3y ago

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Paywalled, so I can't look at the details. And the details are going to really matter here. What's the paper's exact definition of "impartial"? That's going to determine whether the paper's proposal is sanity itself, or insane, or somewhere between them. I think it's become clear, though, that "follow the science" has become an inadequate epistemology. Some scientists lie. Others do bad science, where the evidence does not support the conclusions. Then some non-scientists lie about science, and others find pieces in the "science" that support their desired position, and construct fine-sounding but cherry-picked presentations designed to mislead. Then people choose sides, and argue with their fingers in their ears for the position they prefer. That is not an adequate methodology for arriving at the truth, either individually or as a society.
- gtsop 3y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20230504093610/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/science-evidence-merits.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230504093610/https://www.nytim...
gtsop 3y ago
Well, you can't have impartial science when science is being funded by institutions of conflicting economic interests. Period. Identity politics is just a distorted lens through which the core problem manifests. The author barely touches it and the paper mentions funding but not extensively. It's hypocritical not to talk about money when that's the true underlying reason they argue about. It's not about knowledge, it's not about advancement of intellect, it's about who will get funding to survive as a scientist/researcher. If everyone had secured funding, there would be no discussion at all, because all the false science would eventually get discredited and put in the junk bin.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Only if discreditors got paid as much (including in terms of reputation) as those who made new discoveries.
  - gtsop 3y ago
    Yes! I am not in academia and I do not know if such a concept would play well, but I can use a parallel in cybersecurity. It would be like having a Red and Blue team. The Blue team produces research and the Red team tries to debunk it, both are paid well to do their jobs. Also, alternating between Blue and Red can help the individual progress.

9 points by mckern 3y ago

Paywalled, so I can't look at the details. And the details are going to really matter here. What's the paper's exact definition of "impartial"? That's going to determine whether the paper's proposal is sanity itself, or insane, or somewhere between them. I think it's become clear, though, that "follow the science" has become an inadequate epistemology. Some scientists lie. Others do bad science, where the evidence does not support the conclusions. Then some non-scientists lie about science, and others find pieces in the "science" that support their desired position, and construct fine-sounding but cherry-picked presentations designed to mislead. Then people choose sides, and argue with their fingers in their ears for the position they prefer. That is not an adequate methodology for arriving at the truth, either individually or as a society.

gtsop 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20230504093610/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/science-evidence-merits.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230504093610/https://www.nytim...

gtsop 3y ago

Well, you can't have impartial science when science is being funded by institutions of conflicting economic interests. Period. Identity politics is just a distorted lens through which the core problem manifests. The author barely touches it and the paper mentions funding but not extensively. It's hypocritical not to talk about money when that's the true underlying reason they argue about. It's not about knowledge, it's not about advancement of intellect, it's about who will get funding to survive as a scientist/researcher. If everyone had secured funding, there would be no discussion at all, because all the false science would eventually get discredited and put in the junk bin.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Only if discreditors got paid as much (including in terms of reputation) as those who made new discoveries.
- gtsop 3y ago
  Yes! I am not in academia and I do not know if such a concept would play well, but I can use a parallel in cybersecurity. It would be like having a Red and Blue team. The Blue team produces research and the Red team tries to debunk it, both are paid well to do their jobs. Also, alternating between Blue and Red can help the individual progress.