Posted on 12/08/2009 8:26:34 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In his new book, The Deniable Darwin (Discovery Institute Press, 2009), published just before the ClimateGate scandal broke, mathematician David Berlinski explained that scientists should not be trusted to check themselves--no more than anyone else on the planet, and maybe less so, since grant money is involved. Now he writes on his blog, "I Told You So."
From The Deniable Darwin:
My own view, repeated in virtually all of my essays, is that the sense of skepticism engendered by the sciences would be far more appropriately directed toward the sciences than toward anything else. It is not a view that has engendered wide-spread approval. The sciences require no criticism, many scientists say, because the sciences comprise a uniquely self-critical institution, with questionable theories and theoreticians passing constantly before stern appellate review. Judgment is unrelenting. And impartial. Individual scientists may make mistakes, but like the Communist Party under Lenin, science is infallible because its judgments are collective. Critics are not only unwelcome, they are unneeded. The biologist Paul Gross has made himself the master of this attitude and invokes it on every conceivable occasion.
Now no one doubts that scientists are sometimes critical of themselves. Among astrophysicists, backbiting often leads to backstabbing. The bloodletting that ensues is on occasion salutary. But the process of peer review by which grants are funded and papers assigned to scientific journals, is, by its very nature, an undertaking in which a court reviews its own decisions and generally finds them good. It serves the useful purpose of settling various scores, but it does not – and it cannot – achieve the ends that criticism is intended to serve.
If the scientific critic finds himself needed wherever he goes, like a hanging judge he finds himself unwelcome wherever he appears, all the more reason, it seems to me, that he really should get around as much as possible.
This has had tremendous political ramifications. None good.
Science did better before the grant money became available.
It again becomes a matter of separating the scientific theory of evolution from the ideology of Darwinism.
And for some reason, most evos seem to be incapable of that.
Rejecting Darwinism and it’s ideologies is not rejecting the theory itself; it’s rejecting the misuse and abuse of the theory for political and social gains and it’s misuse as a weapon with which to discredit and malign those who don’t adhere to it, be they IDers or creationists, or just people who aren’t sure.
The saying is that there is a sucker born every minute and you continue to prove that you took a couple days worth of minutes all at once.
“Scientists are not exempt from all the human foibles the rest of us are, no matter how objective they claim to be, how pure their motives supposedly are in the search for *truth* or whatever it is they’re currently claiming to look for, no matter how intellectually superior they try to pass themselves off as.
There’s simply too much to be gained by lying. We don’t trust politicians for the same reason.”
Heresy! Sacrilege! (of course you’re right, but...) Blasphemy!
Well, that issue is not a matter for scientists. They seek knowledge through a variety of means. Anyone holding a religious view that keeps them from seeking knowledge is a theologian, not a scientist.
Sure it’s an issue for scientists.
For one thing, many of them participate and vocally support the actions of those who misuse science, and the ToE so they have already involved themselves in it.
The other is that if they see someone doing that, they need to speak out against it, otherwise, by their silence they are condoning that.
They can’t ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist or that it will go away.
Actually, your comment proves the point of the article.
By denying that crossing the line between Darwinism and the ToE is an matter for scientists, you are demonstrating that there is no policing of science by those practicing it.
Thanks for the ping!
With the supposition that the police are honest.
And the body that polices science is what?
Peer review?
If some body of peers was set up to police science would it not be subject to the corruption as we see now?
I once heard the following account:
Louis Agassiz, the greatly admired and much-beloved professor at Harvard, gave an impassioned lecture attacking Darwin largely on religious grounds. When he had finished and left the lecture hall, his students, who out of courtesy had remained seated, sat for some time in silence.
Finally, one student said in a small but audible voice, “I don’t know, but Darwin makes sense to me.”
There was a general murmur of assent, and the students rose and left the room.
Science can correct itself, if left alone by politicians and religionists.
My point exactly.
And that’s exactly what’s happening.
“The other is that if they see someone doing that, they need to speak out against it, otherwise, by their silence they are condoning that.”
No way. I’m not going to go out publicly every time some nitwit talks and provide an opposing viewpoint. That line of thought is impractical and illogical. They made the statements, you can hold THEM accountable.
What do you propose think we should do about it? Eliminate peer review?
This article is about scientists policing themselves.
You refuse to police science.
This is exactly what the article is dealing with.
You keep proving its point.
“you are demonstrating that there is no policing of science by those practicing it.”
How did I possibly demonstrate that?? You simply have a position and will lie, cheat and steal to try to shoehorn everyone and anything into it.
Scientists practicing religion are not acting as scientists, and if you want to buy into their BS then go ahead and do so or not do so. Just because someone is a professional scientist and says something doesn’t mean that reflects on all scientists no more than just because you as a Freeper say something the rest of us agree with you and it reflects upon us.
Lumping people together is an intellectually lazy thing to do. Don’t lump people together simply because they have similar business cards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.