Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Never thought about that before......
An excellent essay by Satoshi Kanazawa on the role of Satanist-Stalinist fashion in rejecting scientific results. His main point is hardly a new discovery; it's been dramatically clear for 40 years inside academia. Self-censorship is still absolute in "social" ""sciences"" like economics and psychology, but it's starting to fade in real biological and medical fields. A medical result that shows a difference between races or sexes can occasionally be published without ruining careers.
Along the way, Kanazawa makes one little sidepoint that snagged my attention ferociously.
I had always taken the 'extraordinary claims' rule as pretty good advice, but hadn't stopped to examine it. What does 'extraordinary' mean in Sagan's mind? It means UNFASHIONABLE. If a finding disagrees with Oprah Winfrey and Khloé Kardashian and Michael Mann and Al Gore and Bill Nye and 'New Scientist', it's extraordinary and needs extra evidence.
The proper rule is obvious after you peel the onion. Every claim requires valid evidence, and valid means the same regardless of fashion or consensus.
¶ 6:27 AM
An excellent essay by Satoshi Kanazawa on the role of Satanist-Stalinist fashion in rejecting scientific results. His main point is hardly a new discovery; it's been dramatically clear for 40 years inside academia. Self-censorship is still absolute in "social" ""sciences"" like economics and psychology, but it's starting to fade in real biological and medical fields. A medical result that shows a difference between races or sexes can occasionally be published without ruining careers.
Along the way, Kanazawa makes one little sidepoint that snagged my attention ferociously.
In my experience, the only time the cries of bad science from the self-appointed science police were not motivated by political correctness was the controversy surrounding Daryl Bem’s study on precognition, which I have previously defended, because, contrary to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. All the other times when people complained about “bad science,” they were politically motivated. They found the conclusions to be “dangerous” and “offensive,” and therefore it must be bad science.
I had always taken the 'extraordinary claims' rule as pretty good advice, but hadn't stopped to examine it. What does 'extraordinary' mean in Sagan's mind? It means UNFASHIONABLE. If a finding disagrees with Oprah Winfrey and Khloé Kardashian and Michael Mann and Al Gore and Bill Nye and 'New Scientist', it's extraordinary and needs extra evidence.
The proper rule is obvious after you peel the onion. Every claim requires valid evidence, and valid means the same regardless of fashion or consensus.
¶ 6:27 AM
