Science involves various disciplines and sub-disciplines with utmost importance of expertise and honesty. However, several research results trigger a difference of opinions. These can be on methods, results and interpretations. A research paper undergoes review through learned editors and subject reviewers (predatory journals excluded). Several papers get rejected in this process itself and many papers get published laying the foundation for scientific literature. Now some papers do invite criticisms and comments from other specialists/workers in their field which lead to healthy scientific discussions. However, the punch is what should be the level/borderline of criticism? There is no doubt some workers try to enforce their opinions by all sorts of ways even if it involves nonsense bullying or declaring themselves as whistleblowers (only self-proclaimed). Thousands of papers involving all spheres of science have got retracted till date which is kind of justified depending on the breach of scientific ethics and several papers have even received worthless comments based only on personal views of certain people.
My question is who ultimately decides what is good or bad science? Does any individual has the right to declare himself as moral police and engage in defaming activities against any other worker?
There is NO bad science! All sciences are good and respectable...
Of course, there is no one who ultimately decides what is good or bad science. Science is a collective undertaking, and collective acceptance is one of the main mechanisms to distinguish between good and bad science, between real and fake science, between truth and mistakes, etc. However, collective acceptance is also a process, and often a rather long one. Accepted theories may later be proved to be false, accepted experiments may later be shown to contain errors. An interesting paper on this is Article Paths to acceptance - The advancement of scientific knowledg...
by Howard Wolinsky. There are much more papers and books on this and generally on how science works. You may use, e.g., Google and Google Books to find these with search terms like "science" and "acceptance".
There is NO bad science! All sciences are good and respectable...
Evolving science! It is a continuous process of discovery and development.
Are you specifically referring to the outcome of the research? It's like saying who decides which cooking is good and which is bad? With cooking it is subjective. You can like it or you may not. With outcomes in science we are looking for repeatable mechanistic outcomes, or evidence aren't we? Then if it is repeatable with a high incidence then regardless of what people's opinions are, isn't it 'good'. Good to write about, good to do more research on, good to repeat, good to prescribe on, good to go to media, good to apply to society and generally everyone should agree. If the maths is bad, the evidence is very weak then it is still good because now you know. But we can not do anything with it except try again, re-test, Not go to media, establish a different hypothesis and start over.
To answer this question, the question should include the definition of the so-called bad science. What is the so-called bad science? Is there such a thing? What are some examples of bad science?
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Lovely question. I don't think there is good or bad science/research because 'good' and 'bad' are 'relative' terms and sometimes just a matter of opinion.
Sometimes people see good/bad based on their own historical teachings, beliefs and experiences or because they are afraid to attempt or understand something new or different. In research, i feel one should always keep an 'open mind'.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher