Nigel, Kai...

[Kai]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

I generally trust myself to read critically.

Must be nice to have the training to do so.

Because, you know, you start talking even simple shit like mitosis, and most of us are left in the dark, because we haven't had time to even look at that shit since high school.  Which is why I trusted scientists to do their jobs; I had no choice.

But now it turns out that the scientific community has become a pack of carnival hucksters.  Not all, of course, but I CAN'T TELL WHICH ONES ARE WHICH, so I have to assume that the whole pack is filthy.

That's kind of how I feel about this.

And it is rather condescending to imply that we aren't able to critically evaluate scientific literature, as in many ways scientific facts will run absolutely contrary to "common sense" and previously understood facts. This is in addition to the reality that many of us do not have the time to critically evaluate new scientific publications even if we have access to the journals in which they are published.

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

I had this rather scary thought when the whole "i submitted a bunch of bogus papers" thing hit, and that is a deliberate attempt by one or more parties to influence the non-scientific public to distrust science and scientists.

Given that it was published in Science (the journal) that's not likely. Far more likely it was done to discredit open access journals, which were the target of the article. Because, you know, scientific journals are big bucks, and open access journals are stealing their dough.

[Junkenstein]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

I had this rather scary thought when the whole "i submitted a bunch of bogus papers" thing hit, and that is a deliberate attempt by one or more parties to influence the non-scientific public to distrust science and scientists.

This has some of the most worrying implications for me. Taking crazy paranoid stance here, but if this can be done (and done easily it seems) for GMO, then I can't help but wonder/assume that this has been occurring with medication. There's a pandemic almost every year with X-flu. Someone's making all the anti-X-Flu medication. Someone appeared to already have a stockpile of it ready to go, with the ability to increase production further.

Obviously all of that would be done for altruistic reasons, not profiteering.

As Roger pointed out, all PR is now public relations. I wonder who will have the balls to go for it openly first. There's probably good cash to be made in pharmaceutical companies running their own journals and endorsing each other for other considerations.

[Demolition Squid]

Regardless of the intent, I expect that most people don't have the time to look into the subject in detail. They especially do not have time to determine whether or not any particular paper is valid or invalid.

This all contributes to a general suspicion of experts and 'intellectuals'. It makes it even easier for people to just shrug and decide that what they want to believe is backed up by good evidence and whatever disagrees with their preconceived notion is just special interest groups putting out lies.

You see this all the time around green politics. There doesn't seem to be any effort being made to address it. In fact, it looks like it is just going to get worse.

[Kai]

I am incredibly frustrated right now. I am somehow complicit in the breakdown of Science as we know it because I am not alarmed to the point of arm flailing about this situation. I just spent the last ten minutes ranting to one of my colleagues about this, and he agreed that in spite of all the recent exposees, peer review works as it always has. In any case, I'm done with this thread, because I don't think there is anything I can say to convince you all that Science and/or peer review isn't somehow broken or falling apart, that it is working much as it always has, and that you can't believe what you read. That last one, I thought, would be easy for Discordians.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's just yet another reason not to trust pre-publication peer review to be more than a filter.

Can't trust the post-publication shit, either, because IT is more than likely just as corrupt.

I generally trust myself to read critically.

Must be nice to have the training to do so.

Because, you know, you start talking even simple shit like mitosis, and most of us are left in the dark, because we haven't had time to even look at that shit since high school.  Which is why I trusted scientists to do their jobs; I had no choice.

But now it turns out that the scientific community has become a pack of carnival hucksters.  Not all, of course, but I CAN'T TELL WHICH ONES ARE WHICH, so I have to assume that the whole pack is filthy.

SCIENCE IS MADE OF PEOPLE. Is that really such a difficult revelation? Do you think it's different for any profession? Why did you have this impression that Science was omitted?

Yes, well, I wasn't expecting plaster saints.  What I WAS expecting was...erm, wait a moment...

In any case, I'm done with this thread,

No sense stating my case, then.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As Roger pointed out, all PR is now public relations. I wonder who will have the balls to go for it openly first. There's probably good cash to be made in pharmaceutical companies running their own journals and endorsing each other for other considerations.

Naw.  I'm just a stupid old man.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Peer review isn't down to public relations, it's just that it's failing in a lot of instances and the problem is that the media and the general public has no way of knowing when and where it's failing, so there is a lot of misinformation being passed off as science. It's not hard for me to see why laypeople are reacting the way they are to this problem; since they don't know WHICH studies are bullshit, from their perspective ANY studies they read about might as well be bullshit. And this is, in my opinion, a great big problem for science and scientists, because ultimately, these people and their votes are what decides public sector funding.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Peer review isn't down to public relations, it's just that it's failing in a lot of instances and the problem is that the media and the general public has no way of knowing when and where it's failing, so there is a lot of misinformation being passed off as science. It's not hard for me to see why laypeople are reacting the way they are to this problem; since they don't know WHICH studies are bullshit, from their perspective ANY studies they read about might as well be bullshit. And this is, in my opinion, a great big problem for science and scientists, because ultimately, these people and their votes are what decides public sector funding.

Exactly my point.  And there's a difference between fallibility in peer review and a group set up to deliberately distort data.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

And I'm sure the creationists are having a field day. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

And I'm sure the creationists are having a field day. 

Yeah, the institute for intelligent design is going to be all over this strategy.

[Junkenstein]

Yeah.

This kind of stuff is not going to help the general public trust science. Just look at the anti-immunization lobby.

And I'm sure the creationists are having a field day. 

Yeah, the institute for intelligent design is going to be all over this strategy.

Don't forget the "alternative medicine" market as well. And Psychics. And anyone else with a vested interest in bullshit science.

I've had a think about this, and I think it's just part of the kick in the balls that comes with living in the Bullshit information age. Science should be one of the few areas where the "right" (or at least the least wrong) idea is developed and examined critically. By being able to bypass both of these criteria in this way it's actively setting back "good" science. Another part of the problem is the general public being able to tell "good" from "bad" in scientific terms. This puts you into "loudest monkey wins" territory which isn't going to end well either.