Actually, I think that they would. If only so that it could be disproven.
Thames, surely you must recognize that the above comment shows that you, yourself, are unwilling to accept the product of "pure science" in an unbiased, open-minded way ... if you don't like the result.
I wasn't especially thinking of the "Bell-curve controversy." I've heard of it, but I'm not very knowledgeable about it. I'm not sure that the author's conclusions were parallel to my hypothetical.
I am familiar with the refereeing process for scientific journal manuscripts, which include a multitude of subjective criteria for acceptance, such as timeliness, suitability of topic, potential reader interest, writing skill, uniqueness, and the like. Given that editors dislike controversy more than they like truth (IMO), I am confident that the report in my hypothetical would find ample reason to be rejected by all.
Moreover, the scientist who produced this research would (again, IMO), find life made rather uncomfortable for him/her in the hallowed halls of academia, truth not withstanding.
JC |
