“Science says the earth is billions of years old.” “Science says gravity is a theory.” “Science says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These statements are so true and the evidence suggesting them is so compelling it’s almost ridiculous to think otherwise. So much that the ONLY opponents to any of these statements must appeal to the intervention of a supernatural omnipotent being. But is it truly accurate to say “science says” these things? Is it not a general consensus of scientific professionals that say the earth is so ancient, wouldn’t a more correct statement be that Isaac Newton “says” for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Of course these brilliant scholars are making these true statements based on a preponderance of scientific evidence suggesting there trustworthy conclusions. But what does science “say”? Science is chiefly an empirical systematic method of observation in which we test hypotheses and from the data we collect we can logically determine relationships in the natural world around us. Science gives us the information necessary to make conclusions but does not in itself make those conclusions.
According to the oxford dictionary, the ‘scientific method’ is a method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. There are other more subjective and vague definitions of the word science which are useful but without being concrete and objective, these definitions do not help us determine a precise and authoritative standard on what we can truly know versus what is believed. That is why when we refer to controversial subjects in politics, biology, or sociology some assertively resort to say: “science says: ….” Because this empirical/repeatable process is such an ingenious and reliable process: it can be universally relied upon to guide us in even the most uncertain decisions and disciplines.
127 our experts are availableright now
This model of systematic observation can manifest in many different forms and has existed long before the 17th century when it was formalized into a standard discipline. Since the beginning civilized man has observed his environment, made predictions of how the world around him works and tested those ideas, often coming to a more accurate conclusion about the physical world. Progressively since the beginning man has learned more and more to rely on this process due to its proven certainty, and less on our own untested unempirical imagination of things. But, ultimately there are limitations to the scientific method, every human being cannot apply such a systematic analysis to literally everything we observe or conceive. Some must be avid and aggressive doers, taking the information on assumption without knowing the intricacies of scientific data, or having observed the repeatable experiments for themselves.
How do we compensate for such a limitation to an otherwise perfect system? We specialize an industry of professionals dedicated to implementing the scientific method and documenting their findings in the most reliable and objective fashion. Ultimately, the scientific method’s benefit to society is severely crippled without a way to communicate its resulting conclusions to individuals who must preoccupy themselves with implementing the findings
instead of producing them. But this exchange of information is not empirical, does not require observation, and relies on trust in the institution that exercises scientific method. This is not science in itself. Therefore in order to effectively understand the world around us as members of a society we must acknowledge that the reliability of the scientific method and the reliability of the institutions and the individuals in charge of publishing the information are distinct and unequal. One is the standard of certainty, while the other is a standard we as fallible human beings have authoritatively chosen out of necessity.
So what is this system of publication that we choose to rely on for scientific data, observations and conclusions? Can it be changed, does changing it affect its credibility and reliability? Most importantly can we trust it as much as we can trust the truly systematic empirical process of science itself?
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work. It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. Is this the flawless method of science? Not quite. It is the chosen method of scientists. Out of necessity of meeting financial, political, infrastructural demands of paying for, supporting, and effectively distributing information en masse the professionals who have dedicated their lives for generations have developed a tradition of publishing work. Scientists are surely the most proficient practitioners of the scientific method, but are they as proficient as promoters, media professionals, and premier journalists at publishing? Perhaps not.
Dr. Richard smith in his Article “Peer review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals” says “There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.” This is the generalization of a British medical doctor, editor of the British Medical Journal and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years, surely qualified to make an critique of the scientific publishing method predominantly in place.
He also noted “A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’.2 But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?’.” That is the important question that often gets conflated by scientific laymen like my own peers. It is easy to confuse “science” or the scientific method, with the subjective and sometimes controversial interpretations of what proven trustworthy data may “suggest”. The information we have acquired to make conclusions is rock solid, but we are still sometimes inconclusive as to what some data
and relationships can be interpreted to reveal. When acknowledged as an academic process to formally select the best grant applications for funding and the best papers to publish in a journal or to detect errors and fraud in would be scientific publications, the peer review process is the best we have. Dr. Richard Smith points out: “Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.” However, when the publishing process is not discerned from science or the scientific method itself it can cause the name and reputation of the scientific community and the practice great harm. To compare the certainty and credibility of the peer review process to that of the scientific method itself would be an insult to the great method. Indeed, many laymen and professionals have gained a sour taste in their mouth from the almost religious hysteria of pseudo scientific novices who hail the system of peer review at equal infallibility to empirically proven and repeatable experiments.
Take the issue of Climate change as an example, The data and scientific evidence is not precise on exactly what will happen in the future regarding the climate but generally speaking it is very certain: global temperatures are on an incline greater than that of pre-industrial revolution, and are directly correlating with increased industrial/transportation CO2 emissions. The data is irrefutable and repeatable, yet the interpretations of what may happen and what exactly is the best way to react to this problem vary immensely. While scientist are experts and authorities on what this data implies, they generally have a reknown in feilds of macro-economics, business, engineering, and politics to be rather idealistic or even downright incompetent. We need scientific expertise, but we need all our experts of society because in order to get as far as we have, specialization was vital.
A minority of radical and abrasive scientists and science enthusiast passionate about the climate change issue have taken into to politics, the media, and industry demanding changes but because the line between what is empirically proven and what is subjectively asserted by professionals in a publication( who can also be divided into different groups with different suggestions) has lead to a mass movement of business, political, and industry leaders to criticize and even discredit the movement towards climate change reform.
Generally, when you want to persuade someone to support a cause it is beneficial to be logically consistent, even if it means conceding with your opponent. This adds credibility to your argument. Credibility is the sole purpose and admirable quality of the flawed but effective peer review process. When scientists or professionals attribute the unquestionable authority of the scientific process and scientific discovery to the academic process of peer review for publication, it undermines the purpose of perr review in the first place: to maintain the credibility of scientific data. By weeding out fraud and errors The peer review process gives the public reason to trust what scientific professionals publish, but when the process of publishing is conflated with the process of science unlearned people begin to distrust both.
Sources
- Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, Richard Smith https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ Journal of the royal society of Medicine
- Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review, Samir Haffar, MDa, Fateh Bazerbachi, MDb, M. Hassan Murad, MD, MPH https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(18)30707-9/fulltext
- Oxford Dictionaries: British and World English, 2016,
