Worries mount about misinformation in science
“ ‘The real problem isn’t people. It’s the reward structure on social platforms’…. the incentives for scientists to publish and for journals to attract readers, jargon and other features of scientific publishing — can also contribute” - Axios
- 201 views
One of the other problems is that science has a tendency to become an echo chamber. If you challenge the science (which is part of the scientific process), and you don't fit the narrative you can become ostracized.
dgszweda wrote: One of the other problems is that science has a tendency to become an echo chamber. If you challenge the science (which is part of the scientific process), and you don't fit the narrative you can become ostracized.
This sounds like the process of using the scientific method for theology that Eta Linnemann criticizes in her books. I am currently reading Is There a Synoptic Problem? I am not sure that I go all the way with her in saying that there is no connection between Mt, Mk, and Lk, but she excoriates her former colleagues for making their pronouncements by building solely on conjecture and supposition, starting with the assumption that there must be dependence between the gospels, and working from there with assumption piled on assumption.
Well worth a read, if you can find it. (Out of print)
Here is her testimony:
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don Johnson wrote: This sounds like the process of using the scientific method for theology that Eta Linnemann criticizes in her books. I am currently reading Is There a Synoptic Problem? I am not sure that I go all the way with her in saying that there is no connection between Mt, Mk, and Lk, but she excoriates her former colleagues for making their pronouncements by building solely on conjecture
She's not the only one willing to question the scholarly, "settled" consensus on the synoptic problem. I appreciate David Alan Black's book, Why Four Gospels?
From what I understand, there is pressure to be accepted and recognized by one's peers when it comes to academia and science. This often limits the distance one is willing to stray from the current consensus and is a form of self-censorship. Academic freedom is a great theory.
There are difficult trade-offs involved. Without peer review, academic publishing, etc., any crackpot can make any claim and call it “science,” with no tools the public can use to evaluate his or her claims.
But with peer review, etc., things can become oppressive.
I don’t have any idea what would be a better way.
It reminds of the old joke that democracy is a terrible form of government, except for all the alternatives.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron Blumer wrote:
There are difficult trade-offs involved. Without peer review, academic publishing, etc., any crackpot can make any claim and call it “science,” with no tools the public can use to evaluate his or her claims.
But with peer review, etc., things can become oppressive.
The issue, of course, is that if the research doesn't align with the consensus opinion, it doesn't get published in the most respected journals. So, I get the whole "filter out the crackpot" thing, but this process can become more about politics than it is about science. This has been the case across all fields of science that intersect with hot-topic issues.
T Howard wrote: This has been the case across all fields of science that intersect with hot-topic issues.
One could call it "suppression of truth" rather than pursuit of truth
Rm 1.18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion