Sadly today, there are far too many researchers for whom science has become an instrument for the realisation of a higher cause. As a result they are scientists in name, but moralisers in practice. The manipulative exploitation of peer review is underwritten by a culture where campaigners are permitted to have a cavalier attitude towards facts.
The same may be said of a good many journalists. See Treason Is A Matter Of Dates.
... reporters are supposed to be skeptics. They are supposed to be cynical, hard bitten people who trust their mothers — but cut the cards. They are supposed to think that scientists are probably too much in love with their data, that issue advocates have hidden agendas, that high-toned rhetoric is often a cover for naked self interest, that bloviating politicians have cynical motives and that heroes, even Nobel Prize laureates, have feet of clay. That is their job; it is why we respect them and why we pay attention to what they write.
I wonder how many times the author of that ludicrous comment has supervised a peer-review process? In my long experience, peer-review immesurably improves the quality of the published manuscript, compared with what is submitted. But then, I'm someone who works at it, not an armchair critic sniping from the sidelines.
ReplyDeleteOr, "not even wrong" - and not worth engaging with so I feel an idiot for falling for it.