@rnitsch @arteteco @peterdrake I understand the idea but it simply isn't possible. It is not possible for humans to be truly objective and it is not possible to remove politics from anything. So, with that in mind, how does one go about releasing some work that has the potential to be cause problems? Any position that adopts a "This is science and science is facts and if you don't like it you don't like facts and I don't care what you think" is not the way to do it.
@rnitsch @arteteco @peterdrake From the account of the author it sounds like the guys involved are basically asshats who knew full well what they were doing and rather than trying to find a way through the difficulties, you know... the politics, they just ploughed on regardless. I can think of a few ways this could likely have been avoided. Involve a woman, for example, in the work. Two men putting out a paper that adds fuel to an argument that brings up strong emotions is a recipe for political suicide. And lo... that's what happened. People are people and if you take the attitude that people in academia are somehow different then you're going to run into these sorts of problems. Screaming "censorship" doesn't help. It makes it easier for the whole thing to be brushed off as a bitter old white dude upset that women are working in his field now. Whether there's any truth in that is irrelevant because politics.
My take on scientific methodology with examples (>1000 characters)
@realmattseymour
Hi,
I understand what you mean, I may not have been clear enough. Let me explain myself better. What I think is important to understand is the difference between a biased scientist and a biased science.
A scientist can and often is biased. He will want to prove his point, and bring forward is paradigm, that is, the thesis he is proposing. That will influence the interpretation of the data, the kind of experiment he is going to perform, and what data he is looking for.
And that is totally fine, as long as the methodology is correct. Methodology (what I meant by science) shouldn't be biased.
I'll give you an example. In the early days of geology there were two big groups of people: plutonists, who thought the core of the Earth is hot, and Neptunists, who thought is was cold and all rocks came from sea sediments. They performed research, each one to prove its point, and the sum of knowledge that came out of it is very precious. That is because, to prove the point, they did tight and hard measurements and observations. The data that came out was interpreted differently, but the data is there.
It's as if I wanted to prove that a medicine is really working. I may be biased in wanting to demonstrate it, and that should only make my research stronger: I'll take a large, randomized sample of people, make it properly double blind and so on, because I know that a weak methodology will only make my point less valid.
What comes out of the experiment is what it is, and will add up to what other scientists will discover.
If I outright lie about the results, that is falsification and another thing altogether, and it will come out (one research is not enough to prove anything, you need many independent studies to make something an acceptable truth).
Now, I agree, we don't have an objective definitive truth, but the Earth is spherical(ish)? We got that. How the air pushes a solid up? We got that. We have many things that are objective enough to base your life on it (and you do, when you take a plane or a car or use your phone, for example).
Evolutionary theory is also at that level of truth, which is in science called a Theory. Science has, in its methods, ways of leveling down the personal bias, by proper experiment reproduction, independent testing and so on.
What would have happened if we censored Darwin, or Hutton, because their researches may have brought "Political discomfort"? It would have been a shame, and a net loss for us as species.
Preventing a properly conducted research from being published, however biased can the scientist be, is against all of the good that history of science has thought us.
I am aware this is a bit idealized, and I understand your concerns. Unfortunately the academic world is far from being this pure, and scientific method is still struggling to be as pure as I described it. Still, I think is important to try to make it so.
Science, by its own nature, is rebel, doesn't care about what you think is true or who is in power: The Earth is not flat, as much as people in power or the majority may want to think. Accomodate this nature is a big but IMO a necessary step for a healthy society.
Sorry for the long post, it is a topic close to my heart.
My take on scientific methodology with examples (>1000 characters)
@arteteco @rnitsch @peterdrake well put. I think we're in agreement there. I do have to reassess my initial comments and acknowledge my own bias.
@rnitsch @arteteco @peterdrake Finally, I'd suggest that taking the attitude of true science being devoid of politics and bias, is a route to being completely blind to your own biases (which it's hard not to be anyway) and therefore lead to deeply questionable results in some cases.