On bias: lessons from the history of science

On bias: lessons from the history of science *Note: This article is from the book Smart Design and Peer Review. Historians of science have a good understanding of why scientific opinions of a minority have difficulty being published in peer-reviewed scientific papers. A paper in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science observed that scientists can be biased against accepting new ideas: “Scientists sometimes face strong peer resistance to their new ideas. Similarly, the famous historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, wrote in his inspirational book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: “The summoning of new kinds of phenomena is not a goal of ordinary science. In fact, those things that do not fit the usual frameworks are often not seen at all. As a new scientific theory that challenges many traditional convictions, intelligent design theory faces this same kind of intolerance. In one case, pro-intelligent design biochemist Michael J. Behe submitted an article for publication in a scientific journal. Behe concluded that: "The lesson I came out of this experiment is that while some editors of scientific journals are tolerant and celebrate the idea of publishing challenges to current scientific opinions on an individual level. But when they come together (as on the editorial board of scientific journals), it is traditional beliefs that win."[4] Science journalist Denise O'Leary agrees, writing: "The overwhelming flaw of the traditional peer-review system is that it is so confined to consensus scientific opinions that it shows little tolerance for new, real explanations and discoveries." From Frank Tipler's point of view, intelligent design theory faces such uncalculated intolerance: "It is impossible to find any member of the National Academy of Sciences to take it seriously. The criticism is the literal reaction of such scientists by simply mentioning the phrase intelligent design. I tested this recently, at the end of 2002, where I arranged for Bill Dembski to come to Tulane to debate a Darwinian member of the Tulane faculty, whom the faculty member was lucky to question. Steve has continued to treat me kindly, but since the time of the Dembski-Darwin debate, another development at Tulane College – whose name should remain unknown – has stared at me angrily every time he sees me. We were friends before the debate, but now he considers me a scumbag. If my ex-boyfriend from Tulane University had read these words at any time, he would have wanted to do more than stare at me in anger, for example, as a punishment for strangling me for writing such a heresy. Certainly, he would not have believed these words if he had judged a scientific paper of mine that contained a repetition of the same argument. Surely he would have rejected any grant request I made, including these words.”6 Indeed, some of the most prominent scientific journals have announced that they will almost never publish any scientific paper welcoming the theory of intelligent design. In 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes the journal Science, issued an official statement that "the intelligent design movement has failed to provide any credible scientific evidence."[7] But when some of the Society's board members were polled, they were found to have voted to declare intelligent design theory unscientific "without actually reading the academic articles and books written by the scientists who introduced the theory." Clearly, politics, not science, drives the actions of many scientific journals when it comes to intelligent design theory. (1) Juan Miguel Campanerio, "Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All Times?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 47(4):302-310 (1996). (2) Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 24 (2nd Ed, University of Chicago Press, 1970). (3) Michael Behe, "Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to critics concerning peer-review" (August 2, 2000). http://www.discovery.org/a/450 (4) Michael Behe, "Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to critics concerning peer-review" (August 2, 2000). (5) Denyse O'Leary, "Part Four: Conclusion - How will we know if a more open system works better?," ARN.org (November 15, 2006). http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2006/11/15/lstrongglemgpart_four_l_emg_conclusion_h (6) See Frank Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?," International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design Archives (June 30, 2003). http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000059.html (7) See "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory" (October 18, 2002). (8) John G. West, "Intelligent Design Could Offer Fresh Ideas on Evolution," Seattle Post-Intelligencer (December 6, 2002). http://www.discovery.org/a/1313 - Casey for a knife. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2018-05-23 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/عن-الانحياز-دروس-من-تاريخ-العلم