tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7739403784714088758.post1941791010786177619..comments2024-03-02T05:12:07.589-08:00Comments on The Philosopher: Review: Expressly Human (June 2022)docmartincohenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07116346310852077070noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7739403784714088758.post-18223015042320241712022-05-12T14:30:06.216-07:002022-05-12T14:30:06.216-07:00The review closes with this interesting quote appa...The review closes with this interesting quote apparently extracted from Changizi and Barber’s book:<br /><br />“At the end of the day, scientists don’t believe other scientists’ claims because they carefully slogged through all the data and did all the analyses. There are too many papers and too little time. We simply believe what they say, in some part because of some reputation they have garnered.“<br /><br />I suggest, instead, that “reputation” has only little to do with the credibility of ideas presented by scientific papers. Might Changizi and Barber have thought that “reputation” — rather than validation and rigor of the science and data — best fit the theme of “emotional expression”?<br /><br />Weightier than reputation in believing the science are the peer reviews that presage papers’ release. Such reviews usually do involve checking the data and analyses, to confirm that the science is right. Perhaps such review rigor does not devolve to the “slog” suggested by the quote.<br /><br />After all, peer reviews may result in helpful questions for clarification and not infrequently lead to author corrections before release. A constructive give and take that builds community credibility. Too, often there are post-release reviews of the science, conducted by self-selected scientists who specialize in the subject matter at hand. <br /><br />Again, trust in science seems to stem not so much from any intended or unintended “signaling” gleaned from reputation, but from checks of methods: to objectively examine hypotheses and conclusions for accuracy and repeatability. I suggest that this fine-grained examination actually trumps what one may derive from reputation.<br /><br />Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05120485893579137602noreply@blogger.com