Normal Scientific Practice
Scientists debate each other’s work all the time. In fact, they’re encouraged to do so. The peer-review process was set up so that every misconception, assumption, or source of error in a scientific article could be nailed down and corrected. Scientists look for mistakes. It’s practically in their job description.
Normal scientific practice states that, should a scientist find a mistake in someone else’s work, they approach them about it, either directly or through the journal which published the article. If the criticism is deemed to be valid, the author will make any necessary changes and/or the journal will publish a retraction.
That’s what happened when the “hockey stick graph” attracted some criticism. The graph was sent to the National Academy of Sciences, who had some concerns about the way the graph was used, but generally found it to be legitimate. The IPCC revised its data, and came out with a new graph – a whole hockey team. The criticism lead to revision which led to further advancement of knowledge and data.
Directing concerns to the authors is probably the best way to fix any scientific errors as it leads to superior data. It is accepted and encouraged.
So, then, why do so many climate change skeptics turn to the media or the Internet instead?
Continue reading "Normal Scientific Practice"
Normal scientific practice states that, should a scientist find a mistake in someone else’s work, they approach them about it, either directly or through the journal which published the article. If the criticism is deemed to be valid, the author will make any necessary changes and/or the journal will publish a retraction.
That’s what happened when the “hockey stick graph” attracted some criticism. The graph was sent to the National Academy of Sciences, who had some concerns about the way the graph was used, but generally found it to be legitimate. The IPCC revised its data, and came out with a new graph – a whole hockey team. The criticism lead to revision which led to further advancement of knowledge and data.
Directing concerns to the authors is probably the best way to fix any scientific errors as it leads to superior data. It is accepted and encouraged.
So, then, why do so many climate change skeptics turn to the media or the Internet instead?
Continue reading "Normal Scientific Practice"
Views: 0
Comment
Contact Information
The Manitoba Environmental Youth Network is a project of:
Like us on Facebook!
For more information, contact:
greenspace@mbeconetwork.org
greenspace@mbeconetwork.org
Website creation and design by Mikhail Kolybaba of
Ethical Web Design
Ethical Web Design
© 2012 Created by Mikhail Kolybaba.
You need to be a member of The Manitoba Environmental Youth Network to add comments!
Join The Manitoba Environmental Youth Network