For new readers and those who request to be “好友 good friends” ,  please  read my 公告栏 first.

My earlier article on “why is science conservative?” http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=29014

produced a large number of well meaning and legitimate comments and responses. So I decided to write a follow-on piece to further clarify what I had in mind.

In the abstract, I believe there is general agreement on the following scientific principles

1.         For an established scientific fact to be overturned or revised, there must first be a large body of contradicting evidence (see for example, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) T. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962)

2.         For a new theory and procedure to be accepted as better or to replace the old, it must scale a higher standard (for example not only it must fit previously known results but also explain away all the contradicting evidence or difficulties in #1 above. If it is a new methodology, the new method must overcome some difficulties of the old.).

These are principles of scientific exploration and discovery accepted universally. My use of the word “conservative” is primarily in this sense. We do not usually overturn an established theory on a single piece of evidence nor do we accept any new idea just on the say so of one authoritative figure.

Problem comes in because science is practice by human beings who often let other matters, politics, commerce, human weakness, and even philosophy intrude in the “ADMINISTRATION & PRACTICE” of science. This is distinct from the principles of scientific discovery as listed in #1 and #2 above. When politic and science administration mix, the former often dominates the latter. The unfortunate examples of Lysenko in USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko ) or Elena Ceausescu of Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceau%C5%9Fescu ) are well known. But the influence of commerce on science can be equally corrosive. Consider the cases of tobacco industry on the health effect of smoking and the oil companies’ opposition to global warming. Both industries stubbornly resisted the obvious long past the scientific conclusions were established. Finally, even without such interference, human errors of judgment, bias, prejudice , and philosophy (门户之見) can distort the development of scientific truth. Thus, abuses in the administration due to these considerations should also be considered separately from the “principles”. I mentioned earlier. The saying “peer review is the worst form of scientific judgment except for all others”. Yes, many unfair and bad things happen with peer review. But we do not abandon it because it is still sound in principle and even workable in practice if administered correctly. The point is that we do not condemn the “principles” just because of bad “practice”. Similarly, if something “bad” happens to have some unintended “good” results, it is not a license for “bad” practice. (one reader disagree with me by using precisely such a false analogy). I am sorry I did not make this distinction and separation carefully in a blog article. With this clarification, I trust the meaning of my article is clear.