One Wonders
Wasted paper, I guess. One does wonder about the other worlds that some people live in. From the Government Office for Science:
Rigour, respect and responsibility: A universal ethical code for scientists
Rigour, honesty and integrity
*Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
*Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
*Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
Responsible communication: listening and informing
*Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
*Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
Rigour, respect and responsibility: A universal ethical code for scientists
Rigour, honesty and integrity
*Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
*Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
*Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
Responsible communication: listening and informing
*Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
*Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
posted by Kea | 9:39 PM
4 Comments:
What other worlds indeed! These days it's hard to find the UK government doing anything right.
Ah, Louise, there are a few good intentions round about ... just not very well thought out ones ...
"Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately."
I disagree mildly, and particularly this bit at the end, because self-deception is a problem which is encouraged by this: even the "discoverer" of the electron (he just measured a constant charge mass/ratio for cathode rays, which were already know!), J. J. Thomson, totally fooled himself into ignoring X-rays in 1894 (a year before Röntgen investigated them!).
Thomson set up an experiment to do something else with cathode rays, and noticed that a piece of glass tubing a metre away was glowing in the darkened lab. Did he stop to investigate exactly what long-range radiation from the cathode ray tube was causing the fluorescence, and make the discovery of X-rays? No. He thought it couldn't be anything interesting based on his vast knowledge of existing physics and existing theories, so he simply stuck doggedly to his original pursuit and failed to discover X-rays.
Wilhelm Röntgen, who did stop to think but immediately investigated X-rays, gave one interview only, to Sir James Mackenzie-Davidson in 1896, and when asked ‘What did you think?’, he replied: ‘I did not think, I investigated.’
That's what science really is. It's now about thinking whether nature fits into stupid/clever mainstream prejudices or not, it's not about trying just to do experiments to get data to justify existing theories, or about developing new theories. Instead, it's about investigating nature, whether it turns out the way your dogmatic prejudice expects or not!
"Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters."
That's wrong because it's the very attitude which leads to sneering and rejection of new discoveries, without them being investigated. Like Thomson, you tell yourself [and others] that you know everything about [existing] physics, so anything that doesn't fit into that baggage of existing dogma and prejudice should be ignored and the person stating it should be treated as a charlatan.
"Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately."
This is mainstream waffle that's wrong and dangerous to science because experimental facts often precede any theory or interpretation by many years, and often several false theories are made first.
If you look at how the theory of evolution itself evolved from Lamarke to Darwin, or the solar system from Aristarchus (circular orbits that were a failure in 250 BC) to Copernicus (epicycles adapted to the solar system, no elliptical orbits) through to Kepler, you can see that the correct theory is often "debunked" and discarded many times for making errors before it is developed into a correct a form that is accepted widely as consistent with the evidence. Fiddling the evidence to impress skeptical critics is a vital skill!
Post a Comment
<< Home