By: Mike Gray

Mike Gray — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:43:59 +0000

Neither I nor Christine Dao “dismiss science in general.” The problem with “peer review” lies in an all too human tendency to conformity. Every 17th-century scientist “knew” rocks didn’t fall from the sky, and scoffed at reports of what we now know to be meteorite falls; “independent validation” and “multiple, credible, confirming sources” changed their minds after centuries of simply accepting, as you say, what they were told by authority figures.

By: Vishal

Vishal — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:01:45 +0000

I think that anyone would readily concede that human endeavors should never be presumed to be perfect or free from fraud, but it’s not clear to me that you should dismiss science in general on that basis. One of the great strengths of the scientific method is that it assumes that people are imperfect and that experiments can be flawed. To combat this, it relies on peer review and independent validation of results. So, at the very least, you could add that it is important for readers to look for multiple, credible, confirming sources for scientific information (and information in general) rather than simply accept what they are told by authority figures.

Comments on: Can What We Read about Scientific Matters Be Trusted?

By: Mike Gray

By: Vishal