peer review
My position can best be summarized as follows, when it comes to a scientific debate with political overtones.
1. look at what the scientists are saying
2. look at what the critics are saying
3. see which side is using the peer review system and which is playing to the media.
if point 3 is false, and both sides are using peer review and there is no real consensus, then thats great! I refuse to have an opinion. Unless its my field and I am qualified.
otherwise, i'm with the peer review side. I trust the experts in a field to be the experts. Because I do on the whole have a faith in the scientific process - flawed as all human endeavours are - to be the best of all possible systems.
1. look at what the scientists are saying
2. look at what the critics are saying
3. see which side is using the peer review system and which is playing to the media.
if point 3 is false, and both sides are using peer review and there is no real consensus, then thats great! I refuse to have an opinion. Unless its my field and I am qualified.
otherwise, i'm with the peer review side. I trust the experts in a field to be the experts. Because I do on the whole have a faith in the scientific process - flawed as all human endeavours are - to be the best of all possible systems.
Comments
this is an important. the experts are often, in some fields usually, wrong. but, the important point about science is that it beats random expectation, it isn't a "sure thing," but, it is the "only thing" in many cases which can beat simply guessing wildly.