quote:
Science or any field of intellectual endeavor doesn't work by asking, "Which expert should I trust?" It works by assessing the evidence.
Ideally this is true. However, the unfortunate truth is that there is some "star worshipping" even among scientists. Given the collaborative nature of science, the first or last author on a paper may not have been the originator of the underlying idea being tested. However, they will tend to be treated as "experts" upon publication..especially in a high impact journal. The entire impact factor measure is also reflective of the disease of promoting people over science. Thus, really creative and good scientists are sometimes run out of science (not enough publications etc.) and complete morons can become professors (a particularly acute problem in Germany where an intricate system of nepotism compounds the problem).
But overall, science and scientists even under current conditions emphasize the evidence regardless of the personalities involved. Thus, frauds like the recent case of Hendrik Schoen, go from being regarded as experts to being stripped of their Ph.D. On the flip side, a complete unknown student may make a major discovery and leave their mark on science if they have solid evidence.
™ Version 4.2
