2 ms·

Motherjones does have a left bias that makes me cringe sometimes, so i see where you are coming from. Where I disagree with you is that while science can uncov

by splawn 13y ago

Motherjones does have a left bias that makes me cringe sometimes, so i see where you are coming from. Where I disagree with you is that while science can uncover issues (such as global warming or gmos) that can be politicized, that doesn't mean that the underlying questions are somehow no longer scientific. Politics can't compete. Sorry.

dnautics 13y ago
The society of science is inherently political. There's several issues - who controls the funding? Who controls the publication axis? Who controls academic appointments? This is the problem with reifying "science". Even the "scientific method" itself - as in the way that it is practiced - is suspect. Why are certain conventions of running null controls the ones that are accepted versus others? Why in some instances is "eliminating variables" good (I often take the position that if you can consistently measure a result under sloppy conditions that means it's robust)
- splawn 13y ago
  This is why we gain a consensus based on repeatability of results, peer-review and the ability for a model to make a prediction.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong?
    - splawn 13y ago
      >who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Scientists are from all walks of life and funding comes from many different sources. >Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? I think this is how it works... Anyone with a paper can submit it to a journal, then the journal decides if they are going to publish or not. There are many journals with different amounts of specialization and reputation. > Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? You will find the answer to those questions in the definition of the word "consensus". > What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong? Its kind of like other communities (including this one)... the better your reputation the more seriously people take your input. If you have a better approach to understanding the universe, I am extremely interested in what it could be. I do like the idea of open journals (aaron swartz style), but i honestly don't know what the ramifications would be.

by splawn 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

The society of science is inherently political. There's several issues - who controls the funding? Who controls the publication axis? Who controls academic appointments? This is the problem with reifying "science". Even the "scientific method" itself - as in the way that it is practiced - is suspect. Why are certain conventions of running null controls the ones that are accepted versus others? Why in some instances is "eliminating variables" good (I often take the position that if you can consistently measure a result under sloppy conditions that means it's robust)

splawn 13y ago
This is why we gain a consensus based on repeatability of results, peer-review and the ability for a model to make a prediction.
- dnautics 13y ago
  who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong?
  - splawn 13y ago
    >who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Scientists are from all walks of life and funding comes from many different sources. >Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? I think this is how it works... Anyone with a paper can submit it to a journal, then the journal decides if they are going to publish or not. There are many journals with different amounts of specialization and reputation. > Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? You will find the answer to those questions in the definition of the word "consensus". > What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong? Its kind of like other communities (including this one)... the better your reputation the more seriously people take your input. If you have a better approach to understanding the universe, I am extremely interested in what it could be. I do like the idea of open journals (aaron swartz style), but i honestly don't know what the ramifications would be.