I continue to point out the fairly well established fact that — on this planet, anyway — science is largely done by humans. And that there are, among humans, pressures to conform. Which, to some of my more fevered critics, reveals me to be anti-science and, even worse, a religious fundamentalist. Here’s a nice little piece on how the human element might affect some science — and particularly so, I think, in the so-called social sciences:
“The Politics of Science: Why Scientists Might Not Say What the Evidence Supports”
***
Continuing more or less with that thought, here’s a possible example of another kind of human element in the sciences (and, in this case, specifically in the social sciences):
***
Moreover, what about this?
“The Bottom of the Barrel of Science Fraud”
***
And now I offer a very human story — a brazenly human story, really — out of the world of academic science:
“Can Editors Save Peer Review From Reviewers?”
Breathtaking.
***
Another fiendish weapon in my war against science is my claim that there’s still a whole lot about even our own world — let alone the essentially unlimited number of exoplanets, stars, and galaxies Out There — that we don’t know. In making this insidious claim, I have allies: actual scientists. Consider this short but wicked article, for example:
“How Many Undiscovered Creatures Are in the Ocean?”
***
A curious little story from the history of, umm . . . medicine:
“Was Lydia E. Pinkham the Queen of Quackery?”
You might also read it as something out of women’s history or women’s studies, too.
***
This is fun:
***
A reflective German theoretical physicist explains her fear or prediction that science might actually split in two:
“If science is what scientists do, what happens if scientists stop doing science?”
The background to this is the growing distance between the speculative mathematical field known as “string theory” and other parts of physics that are more tightly — certainly more obviously — tethered to experimental data and empirical research.
***
Virginia Commonwealth University, in Richmond, is touting this as new and cutting-edge research:
“What leads certain people to seek vengeance? Sadism, according to a new VCU-led study”
A small group of my most dedicated critics, however, will not be surprised at all. For years, they’ve seen in me a perfect illustration of the toxic effects of pathological vengefulness combined with sadism and perpetual rage.
Personally, I’m just pleased that I’ve been able to further the cause of science.
Posted from Park City, Utah
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In