Fwd: [WikiEN-l] William M. Connoley, admin? (was: Running theasylum)

[Charles Matthews]

Ed Poor wrote


>I agree with much of what Dr. Connolley says, with one key exception.

>We must take into account the possibilty of POLITICAL bias on the part
of journal editors. Since scientists and those who publish their
findings are human beings, there is at least the theoretical possibility
that they have human failings. One of these is the desire to be
"considered right". Another is the desire to keep a steady paycheck
coming in. Then there's always the desire to use science to advance
certain causes.

>The system of publishing results in referreed journals is by and large
an excellent one, but we would do the entire world a dis-service if we
were to ENDORSE the process as incapable of error or bias.

Point (i): OK, there are arguments for a form of rather pure scepticism, 
which are hard to refute absolutely, a position that I think has been 
accepted by many European thinkers for the past 250 years at least.

Point (ii): This discussion of Ed's doesn't make much sense to me, other 
than by outlining how a radically sceptical argument about science could go. 
Wikipedia doesn't particularly 'endorse' the Journal of X by quoting it in 
articles relating to scientific topic of X.  (WP doesn't 'endorse' a 
government news agency of nation N by quoting it, does it?  Caveat lector 
still holds.)  If the article [[Journal of X]] said what it printed was 
always 100% gospel truth, that would not only be a bad article, but would 
show a big misunderstanding of the common understanding of science.  In the 
worst cases (Lysenko) you can get a whole system of academic publishing 
that's corrupt.  The fact that that could happen doesn't mean that when 
quoting on WP highly respected journals in the scientific field there has to 
be an automatic qualification written in.

Charles