Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (37848)	11/21/2001 7:41:54 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 82486

>>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. That was me attempting to portray the reactions of suitable journals. If someone comes up with staggering new research, the first instinct of most scientists is not to suppress it. IMO. Editors dislike controversy? Maybe: they dislike being proven wrong... but controversy wins attention, also, and if you publish something that gets attention elsewhere that may mean cash rights and publicity... which they do like. Was 'cold fusion' suppressed? If someone (presumably with suitable training and credientials) came up with unequivocal, scientifically-valid, unweighted proof that skin colour were directly related to intelligence, I feel sure it would be siezed upon, and widely related, not hidden. The researcher's reputation would be zip, sure, and academia would reject him - unless his work were proven to be right. He might find it hard to teach, because no school wants to come out in favour of unpalatable hypotheses, I don't know: but if he were right, IMO he'd get work... Please, show me an example where such has been the case where the researcher has been scientifically correct? You're the one asserting the 'conspiracy theory' style - where by definition of the proposition actions are hidden. I'm required to prove a negative, that this hasn't happened: I don';t accept that. You're asserting strangeness: so, show where you believe it has happened. The 'Bell Curve' stuff was sufficiently close that I assumed you were directly referring to this. It was very heavily publicised, not banned. AFAIK it hasn't stood up to objective analysis (the measurements of 'intelligence' are subjective, there are too many variables besides/linked with colour, etc...), so I'd suspect the author's stiock has indeed suffered outside circles wishing to accept any basis for racism... One genuine scientific controversy I can think of is plate tectonics - derided by all conventional wisdom, but still published, analysed, researched... and now accepted as the best possible explanation for all manner of observations and happenings. I believe Wegener stayed active in the field throughout.