Financial and career incentives keep researchers on a treadmill, churning out papers.
We cannot know how many of the 1.6 million or so papers now added every year to the Web of Science database are flawed as a consequence...
What this quote highlights is the skewing of scientific research and, not trivially, scientific conclusions by funding opportunities, access to publication and career considerations unrelated to the underlying science. This phenomenon is observed across all scientific fields including medical research, climate science, biological sciences etc. The undesired consequences of this include popular adoption of shabby science and political lobbies for preferred narratives.
The recent past provides many examples of sloppy and non-rigorous science that resulted in significant consequences and which proved to be ultimately wrong. Silicone breast implants were associated with development of lupus, causing the bankruptcy of Dow Corning, and subsequently the scientific link was disproven. Similarly, the McMartin preschool case involved the pseudoscience of "recovered memories" that resulted in criminal convictions that were based on bogus and unscrupulous "science."
What can be said about the flawed science mentioned above is that it's adoption occurs in the setting of insufficient scientific rigor. Specifically, claims are presented as scientific without being subjected to rigorous skepticism and challenge. This is especially obvious with regard to climate science. The state of the science right now is analogous to defenses of the geocentric universe model. Proponents of that erroneous belief, backed by ecclesiastical authorities, began proposing all manner of implausible tweaks to the theory in order to maintain the underlying thesis. Global warming advocates, when confronted with new data that does not conform to previous theory are now proposing patches and sub theories much like geocentric universe proponents proposed the theory of epicycles. The discipline of climate science suffers significantly from a mis-allocation of financial and political resources to only one side of the debate, and totally nonscientific treatment of dissenting views. Simply stated, the current state of climate science life lacks sufficient rigor to be considered valid.
This is not to say that global warming proponents cannot be correct. Is to point out that the basis for their claims is not scientific. The nonsense regarding "scientific consensus" is not legitimate. The "scientific consensus" was previously that beta blockers were contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. This consensus was proven wrong. One can only wonder the current state of our understanding if skeptics of the then accepted consensus had been subjected to the same bullying, deplatforming and professional sanctions currently encountered by climate change skeptics.
No comments:
Post a Comment