Dr. Hesselmann’s probably right but how depressing. In a world where so much research that doesn’t involve fraud fails replication, it’s just a fact that most published research papers in many fields are probably wrong or at least sloppy. So why bother with fraud? But not exactly a good look for science.
Burgess: Some of the biological elements called bad design are actually ones that systems engineers value quite a bit and use in their work frequently.
Don’t believe us. This is Scientific American talking: ” In the House of Representatives, just two endorsed challengers out of eight won, though one race remains too close to call because mailed ballots are still being counted.” Yuh. If you are a player, you can lose. That’s why we thought it would have been smarter for the Big Science types to stick to their traditional position as referees instead of jumping into the fray with all the others.
It turns out that Michael Stevens, the author of The Knowledge Machine, is not part of the current assault on math, science, and reason. Rather, he is a fan of hard evidence, however unreasonably sought.
We may need to prepare for truckloads of “research” that can’t be defended on a factual basis, done by and for people for whom “facts” are problematic in principle.
Time will tell but the effect may prove cumulative. People lose trust for different reasons and the numbers add up, not down … When the next “Trust the Science!” panic sweeps the internet, a third group will join them, asking, “So what’s in this latest crazy for the Voice of Science?”
McLatchie: The problem with the word “extraordinary” here is that it is rarely clearly defined. The mantra that I would adopt instead is that all claims require sufficient evidence.
One gets the sense that these people are not interested in being mobbed by a swarm of Wikipedia trolls. Let’s hope that’s a trend.
Payment would change the landscape in a number of ways. Reviewing would become less of an imposition and more of a job. Whether it would become fairer is unclear but it might become a lot faster. Many might be glad for that.
It’s hard to understand why these people imagine that the Big Science response to COVID-19 would be viewed by many people as a success. Many people around the world have experienced it as one panicfest after another, featuring contradictory opinions on all sorts of things shouted at us from “the science.”
BioLogos: Drawing on information and insights from the history and philosophy of science, Dr. Davis will argue that Christian faith actually complements the picture of the world coming from the sciences, helping us to achieve a deeper understanding of both the way the world is and how we should go about understanding it…
Re “attempts to silence naysayers”: Seriously, at least half of all Darwinism in print would likely be discredited if naysayers were given a respectful hearing. Sure, some of it is salvageable but without honest critique from outside Fort Darwin, how would you know which half?
The editors need not, of course, sympathize with the ID perspective to think that evidence for it should be permitted to be discussed. At one time, that was a conventional intellectual position. But the Darwinians, as we’ve said here earlier, are an early flowering of Cancel Culture. No evidence may be discussed that may be thought to favor an Incorrect view.
Ballantyne is known for the concept of “epistemic trespassing,” where a scholar, convinced that his thesis explains the universe, invades other disciplines like the mad bull charging into the literary tearoom.
Doubtless, the science journal editors believe that Trump will be defeated and they will claim some credit for that. Fair enough. But it’s possible that Trump will be reelected. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all served two terms each. And Trump won the last election despite all the polls that announced he would lose. Should that happen, the journal editors will be in the unhappy position of being widely seen to be ignored.