Science is mean to people whose ideas suck

[swansont]

I lifted that from the comments of the linked post. In light of some recent exchanges, it resonated.

 

We discuss peer-review and issues of getting published from time to time. Here's something I ran across that discusses it a little. It's in the latter half of the post.

 

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2010/02/susan-mazur-perpetually-clueless.html

[Mr Skeptic]

Now there is an amusing sentence. And so true.

[CharonY]

Is it bad that I found Mazur's articles even funnier? The idea of a science mafia is kind of cool. "You have not provided confidence intervals" *sound of breaking bones*

[insane_alien]

science is only mean to people when they fail to accept the rejection and rebuttal the first time round. its only the clingy ones that actuallly get any spite.

[SH3RL0CK]

Its not as mean as the marketplace. Scientists may shoot down dumb ideas and possibly even ridicule and mock those with dumb ideas. But someone with a stupid idea who invests heavily in said idea could go bankrupt and lose everything.

[John Cuthber]

Life is mean to people whose ideas suck.

Science generally won't kill you for having a bad idea like thinking that strawberry jam will act as s hark repellent; reality will.

[swansont]

Is it bad that I found Mazur's articles even funnier? The idea of a science mafia is kind of cool. "You have not provided confidence intervals" *sound of breaking bones*

 

I kind of like Darth Vader in that role. "I find your lack of error bars disturbing" *sounds of suffocation*

[Mr Skeptic]

Life is mean to people whose ideas suck.

Science generally won't kill you for having a bad idea like thinking that strawberry jam will act as s hark repellent; reality will.

 

I'll see your shark repellent jam, and raise you a vampire repellent pendant.

 

In science only the best ideas will be given any consideration. In life, you can muddle along with really dumb ideas that have little negative effect. Life, of course, can be much more brutal, whether or not you are relying on bad ideas.

 

I don't swim much, even less in the ocean, and even if I did and thought I could repel sharks with strawberry jam, I am extremely unlikely to ever get eaten by a shark.

[liarliarpof]

Genuine 'Science' is not mean - 'Scientists', on the other hand....

[John Cuthber]

I still think I'm at more risk of being eaten by a shark because my jam based repellent didn't work than of being attacked by a vampire because the pendant didn't work.

[VedekPako]

The only idea that sucks is one that hasn't been examined yet.

[swansont]

Genuine 'Science' is not mean - 'Scientists', on the other hand....

 

I have to disagree with this. Scientists will question the validity of someone's theory because that's what the process of science demands. It does not imply that they are doing so because they like being mean, though that's a possible motivation.

[Mr Skeptic]

I still think I'm at more risk of being eaten by a shark because my jam based repellent didn't work than of being attacked by a vampire because the pendant didn't work.

 

See? My pendant beats your jam.

[iNow]

This seemed worthy of awaking given recent exchanges... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61373-ridicule-is-not-good-science/

[swansont]

The other thread is about ridicule

 

mean ≠ ridicule

 

There's a large swath of people for whom contradiction is being mean. You can brutally point out errors with out once resorting to ridicule.

[Ophiolite]

The other thread is about ridicule

 

mean ≠ ridicule

 

There's a large swath of people for whom contradiction is being mean. You can brutally point out errors with out once resorting to ridicule.

And an equal tranche for whom contradiction is equivalent to ridicule. Any brutal destruction of an idea through exposure of its inconsistencies automatically shows it to be ridiculous.

[Iggy]

Here's something I ran across that discusses it a little. It's in the latter half of the post.

 

 

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2010/02/susan-mazur-perpetually-clueless.html

The thing that's twisted and strange, but typical I suppose -- that blog was written in Feb. 2010. The first bit,

 

She [suzan Mazur] claims "Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini report colleagues attempted to silence them from publishing in their new book..."

 

Suzan Mazur apparently believed the science Gestapo was trying to silence Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and keep him from publishing his book.

 

Smash cut to three months later and Massimo Piatelli (a different person with an ironically similar name) wrote "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk". The book mentions Suzan as, I would guess, some kind of trumpet for pseudo-science and conspiracy theories.

 

Suzan tried straight away to get the publisher to remove the book from circulation.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

The thing that's twisted and strange, but typical I suppose -- that blog was written in Feb. 2010. The first bit,

 

 

 

Susan Mazur apparently believed the science Gestapo was trying to silence Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and keep him from publishing his book.

 

Smash cut to three months later and Massimo Piatelli (a different person with an ironically similar name) wrote "Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk". The book mentions Susan as, I would guess, some kind of trumpet for pseudo-science and conspiracy theories.

 

Susan tried straight away to get the publisher to remove the book from circulation.

I'd say she was being hypocritical in this instance. Journalist.