7 ms·

I'm not sure what you're getting at (higher standard of opacity?) but in general, the consensus has been shifting toward open data and more open publishing (eg,

by aristus 13y ago

I'm not sure what you're getting at (higher standard of opacity?) but in general, the consensus has been shifting toward open data and more open publishing (eg, ArXiv). But regardless of the level of openness, it's quite possible for Science to be wrong, badly wrong, for years. Check out the story of Dr Moniz, for example: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1949/moniz-article.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/19...

mathattack 13y ago
What I mean is, should we allow scientists a couple years to interpret the data from their experiments and models before forcing them to share it? Should we (as taxpayers funding the research) require them to disclose results before the peer review process? I hear you on science being wrong. One of the best things about science is there is a self-correcting mechanism, though it takes a while. As one physics professor said, "A change in paradigm doesn't wait for the old masters to retire, it waits until they die."