Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikesolar
Jeff, that is absolutely wrong and is one of the worst generalizations I have heard in a long time. And this argument about scientists is one reason why the climate change deniers will never believe them.
YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE OUT THE SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ABOUT WHOM YOU SPEAK. YOU HAVE JUST, POTENTIALLY, INSULTED MY WIFE WHO FIGHTS DAY IN AND DAY OUT TO KEEP BIAS OUT OF PUBLISHED PAPERS.
Distinguish between proper wide spread peer reviewed papers by people with good reputations and the corporate apes that masquerade as scientists. They are the ones with the usually "undeclared" bias.
That said, everyone has a bias, and most scientists do some research to prove a theory. Their neck is on the line if they fake anything. It will almost NEVER be published in a legitimate paper.
|
I'm not talking about the bagillions of tons of institutional research that gets properly reviewed and edited, and ends up being published in some article buried in a trade magazine no one reads. I estimate 99.7% of the university research papers are of this type. Relevant, who's to say? Most of them remain unknown.
What I'm talking about is the papers written by individuals employed by a certain industry or interested or vested entity. Some of these authors are in positions sheltered from repercussions, but most aren't. Logical papers can be written, that stand up to institutional scrutiny, with research to back the thesis, to support nearly any agenda. After a while in the system, ambitious professionals have learned what they can write about that will get noticed, and what not to write about that might end their careers. The peer review process is a walk in the park at the end.
The whole process reminded me of an episode of mythbusters while I was in school. Some of the stuff good researchers were spending their public-funded time on was just a joke. But it wasn't.