Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Given that collaboration [in science] is the norm, you may be asking yourself the eternal question: Who cares? How does the image of a lone scientist hero cause any danger to me?

The problem arises when there is a debate about a scientific topic. Following this structure, debate is a necessary and encouraged part of the scientific process. This debate happens before the idea is released to anyone outside of a few scientists and, while it can become heated at times, takes place with great respect between proponents of different viewpoints.

The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand.

While this is an excellent method of disseminating knowledge, it can also provide a platform for any opinion—regardless of the weight of data behind it—to be equal to that released in more traditional scientific ways.

Particularly in today's largely populist climate, people are looking to see the lone scientist hero overthrow the perceived dominance of facts coming from academia.

And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.

Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:43PM (9 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:43PM (#600164) Homepage
    Trying to publish your *honestly held* (i.e. you believe it stands up to adversarial argumentation and scrutiny) opinion in a scientific journal is trying to play the science game correctly (you're challenging the world to disprove you, a la Popper). If those opinions are clearly bogus, then the *journal* is *incompetent*, and should be shamed.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM (#600202)

    This is wrong/outdated. In modern science you dont challenge the world to "disprove you", you challenge it to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:00PM (3 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:00PM (#600311) Journal

    You only show that you don't understand anything about science. It is by far not sufficient that you honestly hold that opinion. What you publish in a scientific journal is evidence for your claims.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:32AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:32AM (#600586) Homepage
      > You only show that you don't understand anything about science.

      Yo' moma.

      > It is by far not sufficient that you honestly hold that opinion.

      In order for it to not be fraud, it is.

      > What you publish in a scientific journal is evidence for your claims.

      Not necesarrily, and in fact rarely. It's an assertion that you have evidence. Mostly it's an interpretation of the actual evidence which is rarely made public.

      Your post is remarkably incoherent, given your usual high standards. Maybe you misread my post, or the post to which it was a response.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:06PM (1 child)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:06PM (#600773) Journal

        > It is by far not sufficient that you honestly hold that opinion.

        In order for it to not be fraud, it is.

        You know the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient"?

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 24 2017, @08:40AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday November 24 2017, @08:40AM (#600994) Homepage
          Yes, I do.

          I don't believe someone propagating honestly held beliefs is committing fraud.

          Therefore that condition is *sufficient* for it to not be fraud.

          C.f. discussions about what makes a "lie", and as there are such discussions, other opinions are clearly available.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:27PM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:27PM (#600328) Journal

    you're challenging the world to disprove you

    It isn't the world burden to disprove you, it is your burden to provide evidence to your claims.
    If the world needs** afterwards to do something, it has nothing to do with you, it will always have to do with:
    - the evidence that was provided and
    - the interpretation of that evidence.
    If this process make an idiot or a Nobel price winner out of you, that's secondary - in other words, don't take it personally, it's just business.

    ---

    ** this need will be based on the relevance of your claims. Don't expect the world to do something about it in your lifetime - as one example: Gregor Mendel [wikipedia.org]

    The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the rediscovery of his laws. Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and William Jasper Spillman independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings, ushering in the modern age of genetics

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:34AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:34AM (#600587) Homepage
      >> you're challenging the world to disprove you

      > It isn't the world burden to disprove you, it is your burden to provide evidence to your claims.

      Erm, and that's what you were doing by publishing the paper, for pity's sake.

      Was I typing in Swahili or something, it's odd to get 2 responses that show a complete failre to understand what I was saying.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:11AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:11AM (#600610) Journal

        Erm, and that's what you were doing by publishing the paper, for pity's sake.

        You made the matter sounds personal. Look at "your challenge to the world", "your honest held belief".
        It makes the phrase sound as "the hero scientist against the adversarial world".
        Swahili or not, come one, give it one more read and see if you can exclude that interpretation.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:58PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:58PM (#600658) Homepage
          I used the pronoun "your" because that's what everyone uses rather than "one" nowadays when they mean "an arbitrary person". Is "an arbitrary person" too personal to you too?

          I gave it another read. Stet.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves