The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey):part 3

[hhiippiittyy]

so i guess by these arguements patent laws would be unecessary?

[VisitingXenoc133]

When he talks about the industrial revolution I agree. However I am going to play the devils advocate for a minute and say what liberals will say.

"But what about all the child labor and tycoon caused suffering? Isn't that what the industrial revolution gave us?"

I'm quite surprised that no liberal has stopped by to bring that up since its their biggest argument against what they perceived as a liaise fare system. And my response would be that we are talking about technological progress.

[J0hnnyH3mps33d]

What he said about peer review is way off.

The first rounds of peer review are without doubt informal, and the peers reviewing likely do know the originator of the hypothesis.  All of that happens before publishing, tho... once you submit your ideas to a journal, the 2 or 3 or 5, or whatever, peers are chosen by the journal. THEN, once u r published, EVERY expert in your field has the ability to review/test/prove wrong your hypothesis, whether they are friends, enemies, or completely neutral.

[Malthus0]

I don't know; the process of peer review is not my strong point but I kinda trust the man to have an accurate idea of how it works seeing as he has authored 80 peer reviewed research papers in the fields of biology and economics.

[J0hnnyH3mps33d]

Well, its kind of obvious... once the science has been published, the experts who disagree are free (and in the institution of science, even encouraged) to prove the ideas wrong, or even to steal them and use them for their own projects. Thats the backbone of science... its what makes it work so well. And this process (the scientific method) would not change if government relinquished control of science to the private sector (at least I seriously 100% hope not, for realzies!).

[J0hnnyH3mps33d]

And furthermore, they don't have to be from your field, even... it would be very easy for a geologist to prove wrong the theory of evolution, or a physicist to prove wrong someones hypothesis or theory in chemistry, or biology. Sciences are interconnected, and if something doesn't add up from one discipline to another, then something (or, more specifically, someone) must be wrong.

[KAZVorpal]

One of the reasons government "research" is so slow and inefficient is that very central premise, that ideas are kept secret until approved by an establishment, then are public domain.

This is, in fact, contrary to hard scientific method, rather than part of it. Actual scientific method requires fallibilism; the premise that all knowledge is only a closest approximation, that is never a certainty.

[KAZVorpal]

Peer review is, in application, little more than a form of censorship. Standards are openly made higher for anyone whose findings are contrary to conventional wisdom (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), while conventional conclusions are given a pass. Some ideas are, in fact, dismissed on their face from peer review, regardless of the support they include.