G'day all,
Wow, a science based, climate (sort of) thread. Terrific!
Scientific Orthodoxy and Research Being Published
OK, Count, to your question. How do I prove a negative? If critical articles are not published just where is the evidence of their non publication? I'd have to have access to the journals and their correspondence to look at their rejections and just why they were rejected.
I have been reading "Kicking the Sacred Cow" by Hogan and while a lot of it is sailing over my head because I'm not an astrophysicist (although I once wanted to be but that is a rather different thing) and do not know a great deal of the fundamentals of biology at the level of the construct of immune systems and just how sight works at the molecular level, it still is a fascinating book. A great deal of it is to do with "unfashionable" science. I don't have the book beside me and today I'm not able to move much at all so I'm not going to go get it but there was a scientist who's expertise was plasma [Mind finally kicked in, his name was Alfven, maybe Han or something similar as the first name]. He seemed a clever fellow but for almost all of his career whatever he did, he was not only ignored but often called names. Now his theories were so impressive and because his entire approach was on the basis of what was observed driving the theory rather than postulating a theory then trying to find a world that matched the theory, eventually a number of his theories had to be accepted into the mainstream. The point isn't who this fellow was at all but rather the orthodoxy of science and just how extremely good scientific endeavours can be completely ignored.
Alfven was attempting to persuade a theoretician about his theories. I remember he was from Cambridge but that?s all. I do remember what he said though because it just amazes me how arrogant scientists can be when they think their theories are so sound that it is beneath their dignity to even look at any suggested alternative. Mr Hogan makes the point that peers of Galileo refused to look through his telescope and that this Cambridge fellow was keeping the tradition alive and well. Alfven had set up some sort of experiment in his basement to show by observation what he was getting at. The reply was: "It was beneath my dignity as a mathematician to look at a piece of laboratory apparatus!" Sort of reminds you of our Mr Morgan, doesn?t it. [No offence, Dan, just couldn?t help the playful dig]
Alfven was awarded a Nobel prize in 1970, partly for a theory he didn't agree with! Despite this, a major work that had been accepted for publication by the New York Magazine in the 1980s was rejected by the New York Times science writer because Alfven was "a maverick" and not well accepted in the science community. It would seem that winning a Nobel prize isn't even enough to get something published! By the way Alfven was not the author of the paper. He just helped with it and his theories underpinned much of it. I think the article was by Lerner but my memory from a book I read last night isn?t that great so those that know their astrophysics and find that I have attributed various things incorrectly, please forgive the errors. The point is not about astrophysics but about the orthodoxy of science, even in the modern era.
Normally, the examples used about problems getting research published relate to people as far back as Galileo. My normal example is the theory of plate tectonics but even this is early 1960s. I rather like the Alfven example because it is in the ?modern? era of science.
A highly modified form of the article was published some years later, when further research by others started to bring the whole theory of plasma as a driving force in the creation of galaxies etc, around to the original theory proposed in the rejected publication.
So, Count, I cannot readily prove a negative. I use the Oreskes example because it does relate to Climate change. It is in the modern times and there are considerable documentation on the Internet to support the effort to show how blatantly biased the original research was or at least that it had major flaws. I also use it because the Oreskes research is still very often used to ?prove? that global warming has long ago been accepted by all those in Climate Research and by the general scientific community. Bugger the fact that later research shows that real climate scientists, that is scientists that are in the business of studying climate, are far from convinced about global warming and it is only when you move away from those that specialise in the science that you get a vast majority that support it. A bit like so many scientists willing to sign their name to some letter or other condemning some aspect of modern life, except those scientists who are actively involved in that area of research.
It has happened to me personally, but that isn?t proof because obviously I could be making this up. It has happened to people with whom I?m acquainted but if they make a living in climate science they generally do not want anyone to know they had research rejected for publication. It is a very good way of ensuring you get no further funding.
Regards
Richard
