"Even in the more mundane business of day-to-day research, scientists are constantly building on past work, relying on its solidity to underpin their own theories. If misconduct really is as widespread as Hartgerink and Van Assen think, then false results are strewn across scientific literature, like unexploded mines that threaten any new structure built over them. At the very least, if science is truly invested in its ideal of self-correction, it seems essential to know the extent of the problem.

But there is little motivation within the scientific community to ramp up efforts to detect fraud. Part of this has to do with the way the field is organised. Science isn't a traditional hierarchy, but a loose confederation of research groups, institutions, and professional organisations. Universities are clearly central to the scientific enterprise, but they are not in the business of evaluating scientific results, and as long as fraud doesn't become public they have little incentive to go after it. There is also the questionable perception, although widespread in the scientific community, that there are already measures in place that preclude fraud. When Gore and his fellow congressmen held their hearings 35 years ago, witnesses routinely insisted that science had a variety of self-correcting mechanisms, such as peer-review and replication. But, as the science journalists William Broad and Nicholas Wade pointed out at the time, the vast majority of cases of fraud are actually exposed by whistleblowers, and that holds true to this day.

And so the enormous task of keeping science honest is left to individual scientists in the hope that they will police themselves, and each other. "Not only is it not sustainable," said Simonsohn, "it doesn't even work. You only catch the most obvious fakers, and only a small share of them." There is also the problem of relying on whistleblowers, who face the thankless and emotionally draining prospect of accusing their own colleagues of fraud. ("It's like saying someone is a paedophile," one of the students at Tilburg told me.) Neither Simonsohn nor any of the Tilburg whistleblowers I interviewed said they would come forward again. "There is no way we as a field can deal with fraud like this," the student said. "There has to be a better way."

...

When scientists publish papers in journals, they release only the data they wish to share. Critical evaluation of the results by other scientists peer review takes place in secret and the discussion is not released publicly. Once a paper is published, all comments, concerns, and retractions must go through the editors of the journal before they reach the public. There are good, or at least defensible, arguments for all of this. But Hartgerink is part of an increasingly vocal group that believes that the closed nature of science, with authority resting in the hands of specific gatekeepers journals, universities, and funders is harmful, and that a more open approach would better serve the scientific method."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science

If any of you have a chance, I recommend picking up "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. The premise of the book is that the author recalled how, despite his interest in the sciences as a youth, he found all of his textbooks incredibly boring (I believe in his own words, he thought it was cool but the textbooks made it seem so dull and difficult to comprehend so he took the path of least resistance and became a journalist instead). In his middle-age, after finding an old textbook in his attic during a move and his eyes glazed over when he tried to read it so he decided to write his own textbook covering a variety of subjects, such as paleontology, astronomy, geology, biology, etc and make it fun and interesting to read. Don't worry, he collaborated with many scientists to make sure the information is correct. While the book itself does not go into any of these fields in detail, he did accomplish his purpose of providing a top level view of many of those fields, which can help you appear much smarter at cocktail parties.

In addition to providing a bird's eye view (low flying bird, like a sparrow) of many fields, he also included the stories of the scientists who made these discoveries and the politics, grudges, and even vendettas among them. Many of these guys hated each other with a passion and did not simply try to disprove each others hypothesis, but discredit end even destroy each other's professional and personal lives. One example that sticks out to me was in geology regarding the theory of plate tectonics - when it was first proposed, they were laughed out of the lecture hall and kicked out of their group. He provided examples of actual fist-fights between proponents of alternate theories.

My point is, for all the talk of "dispassionate man of science", they can be as petty, divisive, egotistical, and prone to fraud as any other profession, such as a lawyer, plumber, or banker. When you are not just emotionally invested in a hypothesis or theory, but professionally as well, it is very difficult to be open to new alternatives.

Anyways, it is a very fun read. I've truly enjoyed everything I've read by him.

Interesting, thanks for the suggestion on the book.

I posted this because Watson, aggrad and others have been slightly if not outright dismissive of the idea that science may not be infallible (especially climate science in recent years) and that it is a field open to correction.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

AGC said:
Interesting, thanks for the suggestion on the book.

I posted this because Watson, aggrad and others have been slightly if not outright dismissive of the idea that science may not be infallible (especially climate science in recent years) and that it is a field open to correction.

---

No one said science is "infallible." You know what challenges and changes scientific findings? Other scientists. You know why they do that? Because they want to make a name for themselves. They don't like an individual. They want to explore a problem. Etc. All of those petty emotions can also be put to great use.

Consensus isn't built on one study or one individual, but on replication of studies and additional studies. The consensus on climate change didn't emerge because Michael Mann said so. It emerged because scientists in multiple fields looked at related issues and came to a similar conclusion. And the scientists most directly involved in studying the climate came to a near universal conclusion while doing their own research.

---

AGW is currently so helplessly politicized that anytime someone deviates from the accepted consensus we see a full-scale assault on their work, credentials, and their very character that it is almost hard to not become skeptical about the whole enchilada. When anyone who admits to being less than 110% committed to that consensus is not a "skeptic" but a "denier" we're going to have problems. Particularly when many of the loudest and most public voices are the ones saying in some form or fashion "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'm not debating the science behind AGW here, but many of the widely accepted theories and laws of the past had near universal consensus until they were disproven, as shown in the book I've referenced. As a science book goes, you can learn much more elsewhere, but as a book describing the evolution of various fields and the personalities within, "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is very good. Not that it is the final word by any means.

A couple things come to mind.

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Laboratory Life by Latour & Woolgar


There is an entire academic field called Science and Technology Studies that is concerned with this kind of stuff.

AGC said:

---

Interesting, thanks for the suggestion on the book.

I posted this because Watson, aggrad and others have been slightly if not outright dismissive of the idea that science may not be infallible (especially climate science in recent years) and that it is a field open to correction.

---

I don't believe I've discussed much if any on the climate science issues. I've been outright dismissive of the niave, ignorant, and often downright unintelligent arguments put forth to deny evolution and the age of the earth. But I don't point to mere authority to dismiss these claims. In fact, I'm quite specific when debunking such things.

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Interesting, thanks for the suggestion on the book.

I posted this because Watson, aggrad and others have been slightly if not outright dismissive of the idea that science may not be infallible (especially climate science in recent years) and that it is a field open to correction.

---

I don't believe I've discussed much if any on the climate science issues. I've been outright dismissive of the niave, ignorant, and often downright unintelligent arguments put forth to deny evolution and the age of the earth. But I don't point to mere authority to dismiss these claims. In fact, I'm quite specific when debunking such things.

---

That was aimed at Watson, specifically. Apologies for the confusion. I do have it in my head, though, that you have defended science as self-correcting when discussion arises over the fallibility of its conclusions. It's entirely possible I'm thinking of someone else.

Quote:

---

Who is politicizing that field?

---

Both sides are guilty of it. When someone who is skeptical of it is not called a skeptic, but a "denier" and has their reputation and livelihood threatened, I'd say it is beyond politicized. The fervor that some of those attack the "deniers" with reminds of the inquisitions against heresies. Thank god that we probably won't be burned at the stake because of the carbon emissions, amirite?

Quote:

---

I know it's popular on the Politics board to blame everything on liberals, but to pretend that certain industries and conservative individuals haven't launched a full scale attack on climate science is the be naive.

---

Sure, you look at the source and follow the money train. If someone has a financial stake in the results of a study that can affect policy, then we should definitely be skeptical. I'm just as skeptical of studies done by O&G on the subject, just as I am skeptical of studies done by Earth First and Greenpeace.

Quote:

---

The reason critiques of the consensus get hit is because they typically don't hold up, or don't say what advocates are claiming they say, and yet they're being used to sew doubt and confusion to limit action to mitigate the dangers. If we're referencing books, I recommend you read Merchants of Doubt.

---

I am not a libertarian, but I have libertarian leanings. But when the crowd that views government intervention and control as a solution to all problems (even those caused by government action) say the only means to combat this are direct government intervention and control, I have to raise an eyebrow. Furthermore, It seems that many of those advocating such policies (emissions, energy usage, etc) are not willing to endure those policies themselves. Flying about the world on a private jet to lecture others about their carbon footprint is not a way to convince people that human civilization is hanging by a thread.

On a personal note, at a previous job I shared a large room with 4 women who all professed their "greenness" by buying organic and driving fuel efficient vehicles (which I'm not opposed to - it's the virtue signaling I can't stand) and scorn for the deniers. Without fail, every single one of them had a space heater under their desk to keep them warm during winter. If they truly believed that this is an existential threat, why wouldn't they be like me and wear an extra layer?

Personally, I'll believe it is a crisis when those telling it is a crisis start living like it is a crisis. I'm going to continue to believe that the slow march towards energy efficiency and greenness will be sufficient. I think that those solar shingles Elon Musk revealed is very exciting.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

AGC said:
Interesting, thanks for the suggestion on the book.

I posted this because Watson, aggrad and others have been slightly if not outright dismissive of the idea that science may not be infallible (especially climate science in recent years) and that it is a field open to correction.

---

No one said science is "infallible." You know what challenges and changes scientific findings? Other scientists. You know why they do that? Because they want to make a name for themselves. They don't like an individual. They want to explore a problem. Etc. All of those petty emotions can also be put to great use.

Consensus isn't built on one study or one individual, but on replication of studies and additional studies. The consensus on climate change didn't emerge because Michael Mann said so. It emerged because scientists in multiple fields looked at related issues and came to a similar conclusion. And the scientists most directly involved in studying the climate came to a near universal conclusion while doing their own research.

---

AGW is currently so helplessly politicized that anytime someone deviates from the accepted consensus we see a full-scale assault on their work, credentials, and their very character that it is almost hard to not become skeptical about the whole enchilada. When anyone who admits to being less than 110% committed to that consensus is not a "skeptic" but a "denier" we're going to have problems. Particularly when many of the loudest and most public voices are the ones saying in some form or fashion "Do as I say, not as I do".

I'm not debating the science behind AGW here, but many of the widely accepted theories and laws of the past had near universal consensus until they were disproven, as shown in the book I've referenced. As a science book goes, you can learn much more elsewhere, but as a book describing the evolution of various fields and the personalities within, "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is very good. Not that it is the final word by any means.

---

Who is politicizing that field? I know it's popular on the Politics board to blame everything on liberals, but to pretend that certain industries and conservative individuals haven't launched a full scale attack on climate science is the be naive. The reason critiques of the consensus get hit is because they typically don't hold up, or don't say what advocates are claiming they say, and yet they're being used to sew doubt and confusion to limit action to mitigate the dangers. If we're referencing books, I recommend you read Merchants of Doubt.

---

Who is politicizing the field? The UN, our government, basically everyone they believes in it. I can't name anyone that believes AGW that doesn't demand it be politicized with government intervention and regulation.

Proof that science is not good at self correcting? Because this just sounds like personal bias.

amercer said:

---

Science is fine at self correcting. It may not be as fast or as clean as you would like, but in the end it works.

Does it suck if a whole generation has to die off before some entrenched field can shift? Sure, but that's what you get with humans. Still with the shear numbers of scientists (and labs, and journals etc) now, things change much more rapidly than they would have in the past.

---

Except that the article makes a different claim about journals. Data sets are not available to examine and many experiments can't be replicated. Fraud is estimated at ~2% but s higher number seems likely (since 2% is self reported - imagine the faith in science if they self reported 20% or more). Further, there are no grants to invalidate studies full time (and prove what is 'true' or 'right' in the converse). There's really no money in disproving articles published in journals on a regular basis, so we have to cruise along and accept it unless / until there's a sufficiently large claim (and then we just hope they haven't co-opted politicians).

AGC said:

---

amercer said:

---

Science is fine at self correcting. It may not be as fast or as clean as you would like, but in the end it works.

Does it suck if a whole generation has to die off before some entrenched field can shift? Sure, but that's what you get with humans. Still with the shear numbers of scientists (and labs, and journals etc) now, things change much more rapidly than they would have in the past.

---

Except that the article makes a different claim about journals. Data sets are not available to examine and many experiments can't be replicated. Fraud is estimated at ~2% but s higher number seems likely (since 2% is self reported - imagine the faith in science if they self reported 20% or more). Further, there are no grants to invalidate studies full time (and prove what is 'true' or 'right' in the converse). There's really no money in disproving articles published in journals on a regular basis, so we have to cruise along and accept it unless / until there's a sufficiently large claim (and then we just hope they haven't co-opted politicians).

---

Therefore . . . What is the conclusion here? Science is nonsense and should be discounted? Or science should be questioned and conclusions should be viewed skeptically? Being skeptical about conclusions is great! But here's the thing - your skepticism needs to be grounded in something scientific.

What scientific conclusions are you skeptical of? Climate change? Are you a climate scientist? If not, what do you base your skepticism in other than a bias against the idea? Evolution? Old earth? Vaccines? Skepticism is freaking great - but if your reason for skepticism is that some scientist lie and so we can't trust any of them - I don't have patience for that level of idiocy. And I don't think that's the point you are making, but I can't figure out what your point is.

Scientist have bias and sometimes reach incorrect or dishonest conclusions? Most of the scientist I know of are human beings, so that's hardly profound revelation.

Any fault of science to reach correctness is the fault of human beings and not the process itself.

Quote:

---

Any fault of science to reach correctness is the fault of human beings and not the process itself.

---

I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the Scientiffic Method is great.

It is the execution of that we should always have a degree of skepticism of. Repeat the test, verify the results, etc.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

Any fault of science to reach correctness is the fault of human beings and not the process itself.

---

I don't think anyone is going to dispute that the Scientiffic Method is great.

It is the execution of that we should always have a degree of skepticism of. Repeat the test, verify the results, etc.

---

Absolutely - that skepticism just needs to be based in something other than bias. It's no great mystery how it comes to pass that the scientific conclusions we reach tend to align with those in our own political or social or religious circles.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Any fault of science to reach correctness is the fault of human beings and not the process itself.

---

Two points:

1. Human beings are part of the process. You can't separate them from the process.

2. What "process"? There is no single "process" that encompasses all of science.

---

The scientific method is the unifying process.

And no, you can't separate people from science any more than you can separate people from religion. Science, however, allows for people to question what comes before and provides mechanisms for changing assumptions.

JJMt said:

---

Can you define the scientific method? Richard Feynman said that his professor of the philosophy of science claimed that it's impossible to define science, and Feynman seemed to agree with his prof.

My guess is that any definition that you come up with will exclude something that most people would consider to be science.

---

Are we now engaging in a poststructuralist debate on what science is? There is rarely a hard line between what is and isn't scientific work, but there are clear differences between rigorous studies and experiments and studies that are not rigorous.

As for the scientific method, it's fairly well defined and explained to children. What are looking for, exactly?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

That process would seem to exclude archaeology and major portions of geology, as well as many other disciplines generally considered to be "scientific".

---

Fair question.

In the case of archaeology (paleontology, etc) obviously, you can not directly experiment. All you can do is look at the existing evidence and analyze it, and draw conclusions from it. When new evidence comes forth, you have to re-examine your previous conclusions.

I'll look at paleontology because I'm more familiar with it. Dinosaurs were originally considered dull, slow, cold-blooded reptiles. Tyrannosaurus dragged its tail, Sauropods (think apatosaurus, brachiosaurus) were assumed to have lived their lives in swamps because scientists assumed they couldn't support their own weight on dry land, and they essentially died out because they were dumb reptiles who couldn't compete with the smarter mammals.

The discovery of Deinonychus (what the movie velociraptor actually is) provided evidence that shook up those conclusions. You had what was clearly an animal that was designed for speed, agility, and bird-like traits, so paleontologists were forced to concede that some, if not many, dinosaurs were warm-blooded. In addition, studies of skeletal and muscular structure showed that sauropods could support their weight, T-Rex did not walk upright, etc.

Another example: Geologist used to assume that there were not tectonic plates, but rather that the Earth's crust was wrinkled like an apple that was slowly drying moisture. The theory went that as the interior of the earth cooled, it would shrink and the crust would retract and would wrinkle, resulting in mountains, valleys, etc and high continents/low oceans. However, this did not adequately explain continental shapes (Africa and S America), earthquake zones, etc, so in light of new evidence people began to accept tectonic plates (the politics and rivalries during this shift are very interesting, chronicled in the book I've mentioned).

Quote:

---

Also, wouldn't your diagram serve to validate correlations as causation? And where in the diagram is the self-correcting part of the process?

Let's say that the scientist following that process made a mistake, or as happens all too often, engaged in fraud. There's nothing in that process that would catch either situation.

---

The beauty of the scientific method is that every experiment should be replicable. That is, you and Watson should be able to replicate my experiments and get the same result. If not, that means one of us screwed up or I engaged in fraud. I've seen evidence that shows that people don't often follow up on each other's work and actually test and verify the results. That could be because of the time it takes to start from scratch, people would rather make a name for themselves with their own discovery, or because no one likes to the guy potentially discrediting others.

In that case, depending upon the field, the safeguard is that the theory or law ceases to adequately explain what is happening anymore. In geology, the apple theory could not explain or predict geologic events. If Marie Curie's conclusions were BS, then the chemistry would not work.

I've been seeing that Einsteins theory of relativity does not adequately explain some stuff that occurs. Maybe sometime soon, maybe later, but it is possible that Einstein may be relegated to the dustbin of history as another guy who's premise and theories were accepted for a time but were ultimately disproven.

JJMt said:

---

But that process you described doesn't match the process in the flow chart. As you note, the process you describe doesn't include any experiments.

Nor does it come to many solid conclusions. Rather, the weight of evidence starts piling up on one side or another until the majority of scientists/scholars agree with that side. But the same could be said of history, and few would call that science.

In short, what you've described is the universal search for truth, nothing that's unique to science.

---

There are multiple tools used to gauge the accuracy of theories and hypotheses in the historical sciences. These range from cladistics and comparative biology to carbon dating and genetic analysis. There absolutely are experiments done in Paleontology and Archeology. They are not always 100% determinative, and arguments about the conclusions, but they are still using the scientific method.