2 ms·

Interview: The Threat of Self-Censorship in Science

22 points by EA-3167 3y ago

EA-3167 3y ago
I know this can be a fiercely debated topic, and I wanted to add this bit about the author, along with links to her publications here to add context: https://www.coryjclark.com/ https://www.coryjclark.com/
jorgesborges 3y ago
I don't mean to be so tangential but this is absolutely a great example of wordpress executed beautifully.
- criddell 3y ago
  I like that there was no pop up asking me to subscribe.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bigstrat2003 3y ago
I can't really say this surprises me, it's the natural result of certain topics being taboo. And contrary to the interviewer, I don't think it's a good thing at all. Science should be about what is true, not what is popular to say right now or how people might misuse the truth. Moreover, as adults we should seek to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. We have a duty to evaluate things clearly so that we can make good decisions about how to act based on the facts. Burying our heads in the sand because we don't like some truths is abdicating our responsibility to improve the world around us, because without accepting those truths our efforts will be misguided.
- eapressoandcats 3y ago
  The counterpoint to this is that lots of science isn’t high quality. The whole point of peer review is to help protect against bad science, which definitely exists. As noted in the article, if people don’t like the views of a paper they can pretty much always make legitimate content neutral seeming criticisms of the paper, and there just isn’t a foolproof way to separate junk science from science people just don’t like.
  - bluish29 3y ago
    Peer review in its original intent is about validating that this particular paper is following scientific method. And that it is not completely made up or plagiarized. And most importantly is an honest try, not committing obvious mistakes and that the conclusion is supported by some evidence. People sometime confuse peer-reviewed with peer-checked which means in most cases reproduced independently. Of course in some fields things get complicated but the core idea of peer-reviewed is the same. You can consider it as an effort to maximize signal to noise ratio in science more than fact checking process
- jffhn 3y ago
  >certain topics being taboo Reminds me of this lecture by R. B. Laughlin, where he talks about topics for which laws can get classified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qCSpWjsAiE&t=3895 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qCSpWjsAiE&t=3895

22 points by EA-3167 3y ago

I know this can be a fiercely debated topic, and I wanted to add this bit about the author, along with links to her publications here to add context: https://www.coryjclark.com/ https://www.coryjclark.com/

jorgesborges 3y ago

I don't mean to be so tangential but this is absolutely a great example of wordpress executed beautifully.

criddell 3y ago
I like that there was no pop up asking me to subscribe.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bigstrat2003 3y ago

I can't really say this surprises me, it's the natural result of certain topics being taboo. And contrary to the interviewer, I don't think it's a good thing at all. Science should be about what is true, not what is popular to say right now or how people might misuse the truth. Moreover, as adults we should seek to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. We have a duty to evaluate things clearly so that we can make good decisions about how to act based on the facts. Burying our heads in the sand because we don't like some truths is abdicating our responsibility to improve the world around us, because without accepting those truths our efforts will be misguided.

eapressoandcats 3y ago
The counterpoint to this is that lots of science isn’t high quality. The whole point of peer review is to help protect against bad science, which definitely exists. As noted in the article, if people don’t like the views of a paper they can pretty much always make legitimate content neutral seeming criticisms of the paper, and there just isn’t a foolproof way to separate junk science from science people just don’t like.
- bluish29 3y ago
  Peer review in its original intent is about validating that this particular paper is following scientific method. And that it is not completely made up or plagiarized. And most importantly is an honest try, not committing obvious mistakes and that the conclusion is supported by some evidence. People sometime confuse peer-reviewed with peer-checked which means in most cases reproduced independently. Of course in some fields things get complicated but the core idea of peer-reviewed is the same. You can consider it as an effort to maximize signal to noise ratio in science more than fact checking process
jffhn 3y ago
>certain topics being taboo Reminds me of this lecture by R. B. Laughlin, where he talks about topics for which laws can get classified: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qCSpWjsAiE&t=3895 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qCSpWjsAiE&t=3895