Sorry Wayne I disagree with you. I've read the Kune-type discussions for years and while I don't disagree with the fundamental premise something different is affecting the way science is done now. There is a lot of current psychological research showing how context radically affects human perception and decision making. The context here is being driven by universities, agencies, etc. For an popular and very enlightening description read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I highly recommend all of his books for insights on how humans make decisions, why success is mostly a matter of luck, why institutions fail, and what drives fundamental change in human systems. I'm not going to get into debating the academic niceties of whether this is a Kune-type phenomenon or not or how to change the system - see Gladwell's Tipping Point for ideas. I think that the frustration with the publication process that has been expressed on this list often along with the life-work balance issues that were recently raised are all part of the same problem.
John Gerlach ________________________________ From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, May 17, 2012 5:03:42 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sarewitz on Systematic Error AS USUAL, I must violently disagree with Chew--on the contrary, everyone should TAKE HOURS to study this article AND the responses it spawned, as well as the key link http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 . I nominate Chew's post as the most important of the year. WT PS: I wonder how many heads will end up on pikes as a result of daring to comment on this? This is (in my view) a key comment from the website: 2012-05-10 11:24 AM Report this comment | #42493 David Tyler said:"How can we explain such pervasive bias? Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction." Surely the analysis of Thomas Kuhn, helpfully articulated in a recent review by David Kaiser (Nature, 12 April 2012, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7393/full/484164a.html) is relevant here. Most researchers are practicing "normal science" and are building on a consensual paradigm. They have a model of incremental progress and they think deductively that all "positives" must advance the paradigm. They are not thinking about false positives. This is the real "cultural belief" that steers the way research is done. Somehow, we need to avoid appeals to scientific "consensus" that closes down or confines discourse. Science thrives when the appeal is not to consensus but to evidence. Why can't the "multiple working hypotheses" approach be more widely adopted? From ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Chew" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:30 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sarewitz on Systematic Error > Everyone should take a minute to read this Nature 'world view' piece. >http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120515 >5 > > Matthew K Chew > Assistant Research Professor > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences > > ASU Center for Biology & Society > PO Box 873301 > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA > Tel 480.965.8422 > Fax 480.965.8330 > [email protected] or [email protected] > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2425/5000 - Release Date: 05/15/12 >
