I think we should both probably stop before we get kicked to the curb. Although the conversation has been interesting.
I wouldnt dream of suggesting that all vegans are as Dave suggests. But the one who periodically appears on our village forum certainly is. She never contributes to discussions on other subjects affecting village but any time food is metnioned, however broadly, it’s a cue for a rant that non-vegans are evil people. I try to engage in reasonable discussion but, really, I just want to tell her to piss off.
I have great respect for you and would be happy to continue civil discourse any time. That is where progress comes from. Hugs.
Perhaps she needs to get pissed? grin
As another academic, I’ll step in to this discussion with @Sasha because it’s more than ‘bad science’ and ‘peer review’ but there is the recognition that research is conducted in a world shaped by material conditions and outlooks and practices that change over time-- based on developing knowledge or social progress.
Consider, for instance, how rarely the data around women’s lives make it into studies (medical, city planning, and others) or how race science was once a thing legitimated by institutions. Facts are facts until we know more. And then ‘knowing more’ becomes a fraught territory where words like ‘woke’ and ‘PC’ are lobbed.
Studies are increments in larger pictures of producing knowledge and understanding about the world. It’s not as simple as true science fact versus fake news.
Peer review should flush out issues of statistical significance (like gender in test pools). That’s entirely different from opinion-driven conclusions worked backward to “research.” With respect to food and health I call that the “Food Babe effect.” We see much of the same with respect to societal issues.
Add in the clear bias toward one end of the political spectrum in the academic echo chamber and some science has become suspect. I’m starting to look for footnotes for the footnotes. Peer review still seems to be the best bet we have.
Don’t say her name a third time or she might show up!
I’m not sure you fully understood my point. Science takes place in a social context, these will determine everything from how the question that is asked and how its shaped to the material conditions under which is was investigated. It’s not about left v right, it’s about the very nature of doing research and producing knowledge.
But it’s ok not to fully understand my point either. In fact, that says something about what facts and knowledge are in its own way.
Facts are facts. The sky is blue. We know that is because of light refraction through atmospheric gases. Those are facts. If there is “social context” it is because the science was poor, for example failing to use a fully representative data set for considering heart disease in human beings. Peer review should (may not, but should) flush that out. In general, “social context” is an excuse for preconceived notions which are not good science.
In the best of worlds, social context would follow science, not the other way around.
I am not sure if you publish in any journals with peer review or act as a reviewer but from your comments it appears that you have little idea how the peer review system works
Facts (with science) evolve over time - Covid research is a good example. And it has nothing to do with “science was poor”
I’ve published several times in peer review journals in the hard sciences. I’ve been a reviewer.
That’s entirely different from “social context.”
And you still believe that the peer review system works ? Than I have bridge in Brooklyn which you might be interesting in to buy….
But you bring up data and heart diseases as an examples of poor science when it is not poor science but science fields evolve over years, decades, getting new data, sometimes new, different technologies etc.
Peer review works in the engineering community. If you don’t think so stay out of elevators and off bridges.
With respect to heart disease I was keying off an early post - the dataset that focused on men for a lot of early research missed data about women that is demonstrably different. The science itself did not change. What changed was the realization that the data collection was deficient.
Exactly. It’s economic sense.
REDACTED. Tempting comment about how epistemology is hard removed. Comment about predatory journals also removed. Comment about ‘sky is blue’ as ‘fact’ removed since could not be done without eye-roll. And comment to explain how ethics are absolutely not opinions removed. Why go to work on a weekend?
Your point is ?
That I was going to reply to the other guy on all those issues. Then I thought better of it- sort of.