The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science

[alanschu]

Fair enough.  In that case, however, it's still no different than had the name been shared (i.e. it's not a detriment by hiding the name).

 

The place where I would (logically infer - i.e. I may be wrong) that there'd be benefits would be for reviews done for newer people in the field.  Or in the event where one person got lambasted for something (justly), but has since made some good findings.

 

 

Are there any overt negatives for hiding the name?

[Zoraptor]

There aren't really any negatives, no.

 

I'd think that the most resistance to the idea would be the implication that the reviewers would have personal bias rather than being objective scientists about the whole thing, and some won't like that implication at all. Personally though when I was marking university essays I always avoided looking at the names on them until the mark was decided because there could be bias- due to expectation more than anything- and I thought that was a fairer way of doing things.

[AGX-17]

I haven't time to read that now. But I'd politely point out that one reason not to believe in science today is that science yesterday very often turned out to be wrong.

Science yesterday still had a better success rate than religion's 0%. And science is an ongoing process. It doesn't stop. They didn't discover the atom and then quit because they decided that must be the end of the line. Theories rise and fall based on the best evidence available at the time. New evidence arises because people keep searching and theorizing and modeling mathematically.

 

Newtonian physics was the foundation of putting men on the moon, and that guy lived a lot of yesterdays ago.

 

Science yesterday eradicated smallpox, created vaccines for countless diseases, created antibiotics, put electricity and semiconducting materials in your house, removed the parasites and faeces from your water supply, etc.

 

Do you really think if you'd been raised in a world where scientific inquiry didn't exist you'd be drinking clean water and living in enough comfort to complain about science on an electronic video game forum via a worldwide network of computers? The internet you're using was developed by the science of yesterday, after all.

Edited June 27, 2013 by AGX-17

[alanschu]

There aren't really any negatives, no.

 

I'd think that the most resistance to the idea would be the implication that the reviewers would have personal bias rather than being objective scientists about the whole thing, and some won't like that implication at all. Personally though when I was marking university essays I always avoided looking at the names on them until the mark was decided because there could be bias- due to expectation more than anything- and I thought that was a fairer way of doing things.

 

Haha, again it's a human element (and I agree).  "Why should it matter if you hide the names?  Are you implying I can't be impartial!? :@:@:@:@"

 

And I've seen the name expectation occur, although as an anecdote.  I remember a B student submitted an essay for an elective in Grade 8.  She got about a 70.  An A student (the top student in the class actually), literally copied the essay and submitted it the following year, and was given a 90.

 

That's not to say that the teacher went "Oh look, it's this person.  Well, I should give her a high mark."  I wouldn't at all, however, be surprised that a statement that is more ambiguous could be better interpreted if the marker has an expectation that the student is keen, as opposed to poor.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's what happened when already published articles were resubmitted for peer review under unknown names: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844

 

Edit: Btw, the only science "we" don't believe in is global warming, which is politicized junk science at best and complete fraud at worst.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[TrashMan]

Global Warming junk? Suuuuuuuuure....

 

After all, there is NO WAY we humans can have an impact on the enviroment. There's only 7 billion of us re-shaping the Earth in ways visible from space. That's can't possibly be enough to affect the climate. It's all a lie. Just like pollution and the moon landing.

[Walsingham]

Er... life in the oceans accounts for more than 95% of the biosphere. So if you're asking if I think that a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (humans in land life) is going to affect climate ...I think your prima facie case is weak.

[Malcador]

 

I haven't time to read that now. But I'd politely point out that one reason not to believe in science today is that science yesterday very often turned out to be wrong.

Science yesterday still had a better success rate than religion's 0%. And science is an ongoing process. It doesn't stop. They didn't discover the atom and then quit because they decided that must be the end of the line. Theories rise and fall based on the best evidence available at the time. New evidence arises because people keep searching and theorizing and modeling mathematically.

 

Newtonian physics was the foundation of putting men on the moon, and that guy lived a lot of yesterdays ago.

 

Science yesterday eradicated smallpox, created vaccines for countless diseases, created antibiotics, put electricity and semiconducting materials in your house, removed the parasites and faeces from your water supply, etc.

 

Do you really think if you'd been raised in a world where scientific inquiry didn't exist you'd be drinking clean water and living in enough comfort to complain about science on an electronic video game forum via a worldwide network of computers? The internet you're using was developed by the science of yesterday, after all.

 

Aim on that joke was a bit too high, adjust and fire for effect.

[alanschu]

Here's what happened when already published articles were resubmitted for peer review under unknown names: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844

 

Edit: Btw, the only science "we" don't believe in is global warming, which is politicized junk science at best and complete fraud at worst.

 

 

This is a strong argument for removing submitter names from the peer review.

 

Interesting, however, that your article would have passed it's own peer review!

 

I wonder if the fail rate would be the same now, or if papers like that made an impact (it was written in 1982).

Edited June 27, 2013 by alanschu

[Orogun01]

Er... life in the oceans accounts for more than 95% of the biosphere. So if you're asking if I think that a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (humans in land life) is going to affect climate ...I think your prima facie case is weak.

Acid rain and the dust bowl.

Counterpoint?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Here's what happened when already published articles were resubmitted for peer review under unknown names: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844 My bad. I saw this reported recently, then googled it to post the link, and didn't notice it was from '82, I thought it was recent. Probably would still hold though.

 

Edit: Btw, the only science "we" don't believe in is global warming, which is politicized junk science at best and complete fraud at worst.

 

 

This is a strong argument for removing submitter names from the peer review.

 

Interesting, however, that your article would have passed it's own peer review!

 

I wonder if the fail rate would be the same now, or if papers like that made an impact (it was written in 1982).

 

My bad. I saw this reported recently, assumed it was recent, then googled it to post the link, and didn't notice it was from '82. Probably the same thing would still hold though. Edited June 28, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[alanschu]

Could be.  Though that sort of research is also the shaming kind.

 

 

I'd be curious to see the results of a study like that across the board.

[Walsingham]

 

Er... life in the oceans accounts for more than 95% of the biosphere. So if you're asking if I think that a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (humans in land life) is going to affect climate ...I think your prima facie case is weak.

Acid rain and the dust bowl.

Counterpoint?

 

 

My point was:

 

a) "Duh hurr, there's lots of us" isn't a scientific argument

b) "Dur hurr... x" isn't a scientific argument. As you just pointed out.

 

Rationalism IMO isn't much better than faith. In fact it's worse because it wastes all sorts of time sitting around in togas.

 

Scientific rationalism FTW! W00t!

[Gorth]

Rationalism IMO isn't much better than faith. In fact it's worse because it wastes all sorts of time sitting around in togas.

Toga parties is one of the things I miss from my teenage years

[Orogun01]

 

 

Er... life in the oceans accounts for more than 95% of the biosphere. So if you're asking if I think that a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (humans in land life) is going to affect climate ...I think your prima facie case is weak.

Acid rain and the dust bowl.

Counterpoint?

 

 

My point was:

 

a) "Duh hurr, there's lots of us" isn't a scientific argument

b) "Dur hurr... x" isn't a scientific argument. As you just pointed out.

 

Rationalism IMO isn't much better than faith. In fact it's worse because it wastes all sorts of time sitting around in togas.

 

Scientific rationalism FTW! W00t!

 

Way to go with the ad hominem there.

Just to be clear do you or do you not believe that the dust bowl and acid rain are caused by humans? 

Because if your argument is that you don't believe that humans can have a large effect on weather those are two example which disprove it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

God created the dust bowl and acid rain because he hates teh gheys.

 

Science is the Devil trying to tempt Man with sinful concepts of facts and logic.

Edited June 29, 2013 by KaineParker

[TrashMan]

Er... life in the oceans accounts for more than 95% of the biosphere. So if you're asking if I think that a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (humans in land life) is going to affect climate ...I think your prima facie case is weak.

 

 

I wasn't aware of fish altering the shape of the earth, creating arificial islands and pumping millions of tons of gas, liquid and all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere daily.

 

Some thing humans made are visible from ORBIT.

Tell me of a single animal that can claim the same, then we can talk.

[Guard Dog]

There are so many posts in this thread that prove just how right that article Alan linked in the OP really is!

[Orogun01]

I don't believe there are

[Guard Dog]

I don't believe there are

There is another one!

[ManifestedISO]

 

 

pumping millions of tons of gas ...  a single animal that can claim the same

 

 

Stromatolites exhausted their way into converting the entire atmosphere into a free oxygen environment.   

[Gorth]

Some thing humans made are visible from ORBIT.

Tell me of a single animal that can claim the same, then we can talk.

The Great Barrier Reef? Tiny animal, but it sure builds a lot of coral reefs

[Malcador]

Toga parties is one of the things I miss from my teenage years

You're that old ?

[Gorth]

 

Toga parties is one of the things I miss from my teenage years

You're that old ?

 

Hush!

[Walsingham]

 

Er... life in the oceans accounts for more than 95% of the biosphere. So if you're asking if I think that a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (humans in land life) is going to affect climate ...I think your prima facie case is weak.

 

 

I wasn't aware of fish altering the shape of the earth, creating arificial islands and pumping millions of tons of gas, liquid and all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere daily.

 

Some thing humans made are visible from ORBIT.

Tell me of a single animal that can claim the same, then we can talk.

 

 

LOL. You really don't get it do you. Your point about seeing from any distance, or smelling us, or hearing us is moot. It's not a scientific rational argument. It's only barely rational. We do something 'big' so therefore we can do other 'big' things? It's exactly the same as me pointing at a 'bigger' part of the biosphere and arguing they logically must play a 'bigger' part.

 

I don't want to be rude, but if you're going to wave a flag for science make some sort of goddamn effort to understand how it works.