quote:
I was also taught that the best science followed three sets of rules:
1. Hypothetico-deductive method.
2. Strong inference.
3. Bayesian evaluation of posterior plausibility.
Finally, I was taught that "normal" science was frequently:
1. A game, played by liars supported by persons in denial, who wanted to buy lies from "experts" to justify their denial.
2. A disinformation program, generated by enemies of the culture, to suppress useful truths.
3. A con, perpetuating lies that were profitable to those conducting the con.
[...]
By these criteria, of course, almost no scientific studies of evolution are good science. It is, indeed, rare for someone defending the theory of evolution to even show any understanding or use of the three standards of excellence in science that I was taught.
Hmm. In my twenty years in two different sciences, I've never directly encountered any of the malign symptoms you ascribe to "normal" science. Of your three criteria for good science, the first two strike me as cartoon versions of how real science, including very good real science, is actually done. Unlike the first two, the third is a formal method that can be applied, at least in some scientific contexts. My observation, however, is that it is applied at least as ofen in evolutionary biology as in other fields. In particular it is applied more often there than in high energy physics (the darling of the Strong Inference crowd), perhaps because many contributors to theoretical evolutionary biology and population genetics have been statisticians, while the average high energy physicist is pretty ignorant of the subject.
™ Version 4.2